Twelve Spitfires, Absolutely Spiffing New

[Hermit]

The 90% is because they're using kits, supplied by Supermarine.

http://www.supermarineaircraft.com/About.htm

Not so silly then.
But it makes you wonder how a 100% kit would sell.

And how much more it would cost if it was equipped with a 26 litre 12 cylinder engine delivering in excess of 2000 horsepower rather than a 6 litre unit topping out at 430. It seems like the 90% scaled 810 kilogram version is severely downsized in comparison to the approximately 2310 kilogram wartime versions in more ways than one. The kit plane is rather more a model than a reproduction.

[mistermack]

The 90% is because they're using kits, supplied by Supermarine.

http://www.supermarineaircraft.com/About.htm

Not so silly then.
But it makes you wonder how a 100% kit would sell.

And how much more it would cost if it was equipped with a 26 litre 12 cylinder engine delivering in excess of 2000 horsepower rather than a 6 litre unit topping out at 430. It seems like the 90% scaled 810 kilogram version is severely downsized in comparison to the approximately 2310 kilogram wartime versions in more ways than one. The kit plane is rather more a model than a reproduction.

I agree with that. But I think a reproduction would be hugely expensive and a bit pointless as well, if there are originals still flying.
I was really talking about a model, but of the same dimensions as the original. Something that looks the same, but has modern internals. Like this 90% model, but at 100% size.
It wouldn't need a 26 litre engine, or 2000 hp, as we're not at war, and with today's technology, needn't cost a fortune to build.

[mistermack]

I think the comparison of 810 kg with 2310 kg is a bit misleading, anyway.
Most of the difference would be engine weight, and that sort of performance wouldn't be needed in peacetime.
But modern materials save weight anyway. A 100% size model, with a smaller engine and modern construction, would naturally be far lighter than an original. If you scaled up one of these kit planes to 100% size, my guess would be about 1300 kg or less.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I imagine they went over and over the question of size.
But I think they ended up with the wrong answer.
One full-size one would be better than 12 at 90 percent.
And they could probably have built four or five full size ones for the same price as a dozen 90 percenters.

Probably. The thing to consider is that a 10% reduction in all lengths equates to a 27.1% reduction in volume and weight - a considerable saving in materials and enabling a far smaller (and much cheaper) engine to power the aircraft.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Do we have the ChainHome stations back up yet?

[Pensioner]

Run out of paint did they?

Look at the construction of the Hawker Hurricane.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Run out of paint did they?

Look at the construction of the Hawker Hurricane.

You were there, you tell me.

[klr]

I imagine they went over and over the question of size.
But I think they ended up with the wrong answer.
One full-size one would be better than 12 at 90 percent.
And they could probably have built four or five full size ones for the same price as a dozen 90 percenters.

Probably. The thing to consider is that a 10% reduction in all lengths equates to a 27.1% reduction in volume and weight - a considerable saving in materials and enabling a far smaller (and much cheaper) engine to power the aircraft.

I was thinking of this as well, but then re-read the OP:

...
When completed, each aircraft will weigh 810kg (1,782lb) and will be a 90% scale version of an original three-tonne Spitfire.
...

A "three-tonne original" implies a first generation Merlin-engined version - probably a Mk. I, Mk. V or Mk. IX. I don't know what the "Mk 26B" in the article refers to, because there was no such version. The last land-based version was the Mk. 24. Anyway, the later versions were much, much heavier.

But anyway: 73% of 3 tonnes is c. 2.2 tonnes, whereas the replicas will weigh a little over a third that. The handling could be "interesting" ...

Note: The later versions were denoted by Indo-Arabic numerals, while all earlier versions used Roman numerals.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I imagine they went over and over the question of size.
But I think they ended up with the wrong answer.
One full-size one would be better than 12 at 90 percent.
And they could probably have built four or five full size ones for the same price as a dozen 90 percenters.

Probably. The thing to consider is that a 10% reduction in all lengths equates to a 27.1% reduction in volume and weight - a considerable saving in materials and enabling a far smaller (and much cheaper) engine to power the aircraft.

I was thinking of this as well, but then re-read the OP:

...
When completed, each aircraft will weigh 810kg (1,782lb) and will be a 90% scale version of an original three-tonne Spitfire.
...

A "three-tonne original" implies a first generation Merlin-engined version - probably a Mk. I, Mk. V or Mk. IX. I don't know what the "Mk 26B" in the article refers to, because there was no such version. The last land-based version was the Mk. 24. Anyway, the later versions were much, much heavier.

But anyway: 73% of 3 tonnes is c. 2.2 tonnes, whereas the replicas will weigh a little over a third that. The handling could be "interesting" ...

Note: The later versions were denoted by Indo-Arabic numerals, while all earlier versions used Roman numerals.

My assumptions are: -

1. That the version number is a new one for the replicas - I am pretty sure that the last "proper" spit was Mk. 24 as you say but I am thinking that there may have been similar kit versions in the past... :duno:
2. That the added reduction in weight is due to the use of modern materials in construction - most notably, aluminium alloys in the engine, but possibly also carbon fibre struts, etc.

[klr]

...
My assumptions are: -

1. That the version number is a new one for the replicas - I am pretty sure that the last "proper" spit was Mk. 24 as you say but I am thinking that there may have been similar kit versions in the past... :duno:
2. That the added reduction in weight is due to the use of modern materials in construction - most notably, aluminium alloys in the engine, but possibly also carbon fibre struts, etc.

Gotcha. I hadn't thought of that, and it does indeed seem to be the reason - special designations for the replicas.

Anyway, I did some Googling, and the "original" is a Mark IX. Plenty of pictures and detailed information here:

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



I don't doubt that huge weight reductions are possible with newer materials, but it should make for huge differences in handling. Mostly for the better, if you read a "pilot report" from the same site:

http://www.campbellaeroclassics.com/id80.html

... just don't take her up in a gale-force wind.

[klr]

Facebook pictures of construction here:

http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set= ... 168&type=1

[Hermit]

The 90% is because they're using kits, supplied by Supermarine.

http://www.supermarineaircraft.com/About.htm

Not so silly then.
But it makes you wonder how a 100% kit would sell.

And how much more it would cost if it was equipped with a 26 litre 12 cylinder engine delivering in excess of 2000 horsepower rather than a 6 litre unit topping out at 430. It seems like the 90% scaled 810 kilogram version is severely downsized in comparison to the approximately 2310 kilogram wartime versions in more ways than one. The kit plane is rather more a model than a reproduction.

I agree with that. But I think a reproduction would be hugely expensive and a bit pointless as well, if there are originals still flying.
I was really talking about a model, but of the same dimensions as the original. Something that looks the same, but has modern internals. Like this 90% model, but at 100% size.
It wouldn't need a 26 litre engine, or 2000 hp, as we're not at war, and with today's technology, needn't cost a fortune to build.

Quite so, I was merely thinking out loud about just how massively different the Mk26s are in comparison to the originals they resemble in appearance.