Inside the Spitfire factory

[martin-vqm99]

outnumbered said:

I just watched it again, you're absolutely right, so that explains it !

No, the film clearly shows that it’s the bolt heads that had been peened. It makes no sense at all - unless they are to show that the other ends (ie bolt threads and nut interfaces) have been peened.

[and31]

I’m enjoying this.
Nice to see the typhoon get a mention,and will be wonderful to see one fly again eventually!!
I found it particularly interesting to see the spitfire getting painted-I make scale 1/24 scale model trucks from the 1960’s and 70’s(sometimes professionally )
I’d love to get into military models,but I cannot get to grips with camouflage paint schemes lol.
I was very surprised to see the spitfire painted next to the private jet-surely overspray would be everywhere??

[Ayahuasca]

martin-vqm99 said:

outnumbered said:

I just watched it again, you're absolutely right, so that explains it !

No, the film clearly shows that it’s the bolt heads that had been peened. It makes no sense at all - unless they are to show that the other ends (ie bolt threads and nut interfaces) have been peened.

Negative. The nut is flush with the bolt, and the peening is at the nut - bolt interface.

[CanAm]

Eric Mc said:

Watching Episode 2 tonight. I’m really enjoying it. I liked the coverage they gave to the Typhoon restoration project.

They're based about 2 miles from me. I went to an open evening last year but unfortunately the bulk of the fuselage was away being rebuilt, as shown in the programme.

[outnumbered]

Ayahuasca said:

martin-vqm99 said:

outnumbered said:

I just watched it again, you're absolutely right, so that explains it !

No, the film clearly shows that it’s the bolt heads that had been peened. It makes no sense at all - unless they are to show that the other ends (ie bolt threads and nut interfaces) have been peened.

Negative. The nut is flush with the bolt, and the peening is at the nut - bolt interface.

Agreed again... I looked very carefully and that's exactly what they're doing.

[Eric Mc]

CanAm said:

Eric Mc said:

Watching Episode 2 tonight. I’m really enjoying it. I liked the coverage they gave to the Typhoon restoration project.

They're based about 2 miles from me. I went to an open evening last year but unfortunately the bulk of the fuselage was away being rebuilt, as shown in the programme.

They had the fuselage on display at Flying Legends last year. The really big issue will be the engine.

[aeropilot]

Eric Mc said:

CanAm said:

Eric Mc said:

Watching Episode 2 tonight. I’m really enjoying it. I liked the coverage they gave to the Typhoon restoration project.

They're based about 2 miles from me. I went to an open evening last year but unfortunately the bulk of the fuselage was away being rebuilt, as shown in the programme.

They had the fuselage on display at Flying Legends last year. The really big issue will be the engine.

Its the big elephant in the room......

[dr_gn]

You'd think they'd start with getting an engine running and certified for flight, then worry about the airframe. The sight and sound of the engine running on a test stand would surely attract some funding?

[Ayahuasca]

Are they planning on a Napier Sabre engine? They seemed to have been a bit dodgy when brand-new, unlimited spares available, and with experienced engineers on hand.

Maybe wiser to go with a RR Griffon? Some of those can produce the 2,000 or so HP that the early Sabres put out.

[aeropilot]

dr_gn said:

You'd think they'd start with getting an engine running and certified for flight, then worry about the airframe. The sight and sound of the engine running on a test stand would surely attract some funding?

Indeed.

And at best, if doing it was found (as many suspect) that it's just not viable as an airworthy engine, at the very least, a restored Tiffie, but a ground runable and taxiable Sabre based at somewhere like Duxford or similar would still be a very crowd drawing spectacle, just as the ground running Jumo in the original Fw-190D that used to belong to Champlin Fighter Museum was many years ago.

[dr_gn]

Ayahuasca said:

Are they planning on a Napier Sabre engine? They seemed to have been a bit dodgy when brand-new, unlimited spares available, and with experienced engineers on hand.

Maybe wiser to go with a RR Griffon? Some of those can produce the 2,000 or so HP that the early Sabres put out.

So you're no longer talking about a Typhoon, but some random contraption that few people would have the slightest interest in.

[aeropilot]

dr_gn said:

Ayahuasca said:

Are they planning on a Napier Sabre engine? They seemed to have been a bit dodgy when brand-new, unlimited spares available, and with experienced engineers on hand.

Maybe wiser to go with a RR Griffon? Some of those can produce the 2,000 or so HP that the early Sabres put out.

So you're no longer talking about a Typhoon, but some random contraption that few people would have the slightest interest in.

Not to mention that the CAA would be very unlikely to let such a thing fly than they will a correct as per manufacturer build Typhoon fly.

[Ayahuasca]

dr_gn said:

Ayahuasca said:

Are they planning on a Napier Sabre engine? They seemed to have been a bit dodgy when brand-new, unlimited spares available, and with experienced engineers on hand.

Maybe wiser to go with a RR Griffon? Some of those can produce the 2,000 or so HP that the early Sabres put out.

So you're no longer talking about a Typhoon, but some random contraption that few people would have the slightest interest in.

You may be right, but I suspect few (outside of PH, obvs) could tell (or care about) the difference. There are of course Messerschmitt 109s (109S? Sorry, I meant Buffons) with RR engines, and that is a much bigger leap...

Still, hope it is a Napier Sabre!

[Dr Jekyll]

Ayahuasca said:

You may be right, but I suspect few (outside of PH, obvs) could tell (or care about) the difference. There are of course Messerschmitt 109s (109S? Sorry, I meant Buffons) with RR engines, and that is a much bigger leap...

Still, hope it is a Napier Sabre!

Technically Buchons rather than 109s so the Merlin is the correct engine. Also real 109 prototypes flew with the Rolls Royce Kestrel and a Junkers Jumo as well as the Daimler Benz engine so a 109 without a different engine is still arguably a 109. While the Typhoon only ever flew with the Napier.

[aeropilot]

Ayahuasca said:

dr_gn said:

Ayahuasca said:

Are they planning on a Napier Sabre engine? They seemed to have been a bit dodgy when brand-new, unlimited spares available, and with experienced engineers on hand.

Maybe wiser to go with a RR Griffon? Some of those can produce the 2,000 or so HP that the early Sabres put out.

So you're no longer talking about a Typhoon, but some random contraption that few people would have the slightest interest in.

You may be right, but I suspect few (outside of PH, obvs) could tell (or care about) the difference.

You're missing the point, its not about anyone telling the difference, as it wouldn't be allowed to fly by the CAA.
Its not like cars where you can just drop in another make of engine that has no technical backup or design authority support and away you go.
Its why no one in the UK bought a Flugwerke new build FW190, as the CAA said no. The only two examples I can think of that have the documentation backup to satisfy the CAA are the US engine conversions of the Sea Fury/Fury and the Russian factory new build Yak's using the Allison V12's.

[Eric Mc]

Is there a running Sabre anywhere?

[dr_gn]

aeropilot said:

Ayahuasca said:

dr_gn said:

Ayahuasca said:

Are they planning on a Napier Sabre engine? They seemed to have been a bit dodgy when brand-new, unlimited spares available, and with experienced engineers on hand.

Maybe wiser to go with a RR Griffon? Some of those can produce the 2,000 or so HP that the early Sabres put out.

So you're no longer talking about a Typhoon, but some random contraption that few people would have the slightest interest in.

You may be right, but I suspect few (outside of PH, obvs) could tell (or care about) the difference.

You're missing the point, its not about anyone telling the difference, as it wouldn't be allowed to fly by the CAA.
Its not like cars where you can just drop in another make of engine that has no technical backup or design authority support and away you go.
Its why no one in the UK bought a Flugwerke new build FW190, as the CAA said no. The only two examples I can think of that have the documentation backup to satisfy the CAA are the US engine conversions of the Sea Fury/Fury and the Russian factory new build Yak's using the Allison V12's.

There was an FW190 at Flying Legends a while ago. IIRC it had a Chinese built radial engine of similar displacement to the original. Put on quite a show. The Buchons were always ftted with Merlins, so they're legit. I think if the Typhoon had a hypothetical, similar capacity Rolls-Royce or Allison or Wright H-24 dropped in, it would be far more viable, but fitting it with a totally different configuration of engine would make it pretty much an irrelevance in the warbird world.

[aeropilot]

dr_gn said:

There was an FW190 at Flying Legends a while ago. IIRC it had a Chinese built radial engine of similar displacement to the original. Put on quite a show.

Yes it did.

But, while one can fly here on a foreign reg for a short while, you couldn't register it and fly it on a UK G-reg, as is.

[aeropilot]

Eric Mc said:

Is there a running Sabre anywhere?

Nope.

Not been a running Sabre anywhere for 70 plus years.

[Ayahuasca]

Hope they get the thing built with the NS engine, and that the CAA is happy for it to fly.

Incidentally, I have experience of installing non-original engines in Typhoons - this 1:72 one is fitted with a re-purposed electric motor from a drone...