The Supermarine Spitfire

[AndyRicco]

The speed Spitfire is a perfect example that spitfire airframe had great speed potential. It managed over 400mph at sea level, while the later griffon spits with about the same power and all the military equipment fitted, managed around 360mph at sea level.

I wonder why all new built spits today are built to wartime specifications, with gun fairings, cannon buble on the wings, bulletproof screen, rear view mirror and all that stuff that affect performance and add weight.
It would be nice for once, if anyone would "restore" one to prototype specification, and maybe incorporate some later modifications learned through the war.
Light, streamlined and beutiful.

 

[SplitRz]

The speed Spitfire is a perfect example that spitfire airframe had great speed potential. It managed over 400mph at sea level, while the later griffon spits with about the same power and all the military equipment fitted, managed around 360mph at sea level.

I wonder why all new built spits today are built to wartime specifications, with gun fairings, cannon buble on the wings, bulletproof screen, rear view mirror and all that stuff that affect performance and add weight.
It would be nice for once, if anyone would "restore" one to prototype specification, and maybe incorporate some later modifications learned through the war.
Light, streamlined and beutiful.

Because these aircraft are pieces of heritage? Presuming you had a spare £2m in the meantime, think that's a major reason.

What you're asking is for someone to take a rare, expensive aircraft that has huge heritage and cultural value on top of that, and covert it into some kind of unrepresentative sports car. To what purpose? I'm afraid you'd probably have to be an Elon Musk or Geoff Bezos to tinker in that territory,

'New built Spits'?? Models maybe, but all the full scale Spits are restored airframes, not new builds.

 

[AndyRicco]

Because these aircraft are pieces of heritage? Presuming you had a spare £2m in the meantime, think that's a major reason.

What you're asking is for someone to take a rare, expensive aircraft that has huge heritage and cultural value on top of that, and covert it into some kind of unrepresentative sports car. To what purpose? I'm afraid you'd probably have to be an Elon Musk or Geoff Bezos to tinker in that territory,

'New built Spits'?? Models maybe, but all the full scale Spits are restored airframes, not new builds.

If you have the ID tag of an original spitfire, you can construct the airplane from scratch. That means it has no other historical value other than the number plate, everything is new built.
As for existing spitfire's bulidt during ww2, i completly understand they dont want to change that aeroplane in to something that its not. That aeroplane is a piece of history.

If you build a new spitfire to civil specification, its still a spitfire.

 

[pbehn]

If you have the ID tag of an original spitfire, you can construct the airplane from scratch. That means it has no other historical value other than the number plate, everything is new built.
As for existing spitfire's bulidt during ww2, i completly understand they dont want to change that aeroplane in to something that its not. That aeroplane is a piece of history.

If you build a new spitfire to civil specification, its still a spitfire.

If you construct a new aircraft around a name plate it has to comply in every way to all the specs that the original was built to, apart from historical value, you have a plane that i known to work and has concessions to modern standards because of that. If you make a new air plane to your own spec and modern civil standards you dont have a Spitfire you have your own design that probably only you would be happy to fly and work on. Even in their own time prop powered fighters werent fast, the Spitfire Mk XIV came in just before jets were in service and the P-51D came into service just after.

 

[AndyRicco]

If you construct a new aircraft around a name plate it has to comply in every way to all the specs that the original was built to, apart from historical value, you have a plane that i known to work and has concessions to modern standards because of that. If you make a new air plane to your own spec and modern civil standards you dont have a Spitfire you have your own design that probably only you would be happy to fly and work on. Even in their own time prop powered fighters werent fast, the Spitfire Mk XIV came in just before jets were in service and the P-51D came into service just after.

If you have a name plate of a mk1, you have to construct it with an external bulletproof windscreen?
As far as i remember, you can have it as you want, as long as it was produced on a original spitfire.
Let say you have a destroyd mark V in pieces and want to rebuild it to flying condition, you can build it to a specification without cannons and other wartime equipment. And you can add a PR windscreen, 4 blade probeller and even a retractable tail wheel, as long as those mods where done to a original spitfire.
Am i correct?

 

[pbehn]

If you have a name plate of a mk1, you have to construct it with an external bulletproof windscreen?
As far as i remember, you can have it as you want, as long as it was produced on a original spitfire.
Let say you have a destroyd mark V in pieces and want to rebuild it to flying condition, you can build it to a specification without cannons and other wartime equipment. And you can add a PR windscreen, 4 blade probeller and even a retractable tail wheel, as long as those mods where done to a original spitfire.
Am i correct?

Yes, but what is your point? There were unarmed versions of almost all Spitfires during WW2.

 

[AndyRicco]

Yes, but what is your point? There were unarmed versions of almost all Spitfires during WW2.

My point and question is, Why do all those new builds get these military equipment that only takes away handling and performance? If i where a pilot that had 3 million dollars to spend on a warbird, i would most certainly want it to give me most joy when flying. Not add unecessary stuff that only takes away from that joy.
Owning an original ww2 spitfire is of course another matter.

 

[SplitRz]

Yes, but what is your point? There were unarmed versions of almost all Spitfires during WW2.

I think there's some mutual incomprehension in this thread!

I think (?) the OP was about constructing a Spitfire in its 'original' pre-operational service form; sans rear view mirror, presumably armour, bullet proof screen etc along the lines of this modified version designed for a crack at the speed record -

However, even a quick look at this seems to reveal some significant departures from first in service models- ie four blade prop, no Malcolm hood, larger radiator, tail skid, ejector stubs - (and thats what we can see.) A bit more here - How the Speed Spitfire Racing Merlin led to the development of the Merlin III

So I confess to being a bit lost. The Speed Spitfire is probably a lot more modified than the post-prototype in service mark 1s. Well, clearly it is - here's the prototype: Two blade prop, no ejector stubs, skid and no tail wheel, close fitting canopy:

The first Spits in service looked like this:

Just the paintjob, aerial, tailwheel and ejector stubs to differentiate them externally, as far as I can see. Oh, pitot has moved from the leading edge. But I think we're talking minutiae here.

I dunno what the OP had in mind?

 

[SplitRz]

My point and question is, Why do all those new builds get these military equipment that only takes away handling and performance? If i where a pilot that had 3 million dollars to spend on a warbird, i would most certainly want it to give me most joy when flying. Not add unecessary stuff that only takes away from that joy.
Owning an original ww2 spitfire is of course another matter.

Well, What mods are you talking about?? They wont be carrying the weight of armour or guns for starters. They will only rarely be flying with anything like a full tank. The rear view mirror is probably quite useful to *any* pilot. The ejector stubs add performance. The few other extraneous lumps and bumps like the bulges and cannon fairings in later marks don't have very much effect because they also have hugely increased horsepower. Modern radios weigh a fraction of wartime ones, etc.

Afterall, its a Spitfire. Thats what the owner is celebrating. And given that modern Spitfires are unlikely to be flying at the kind of loaded weights their wartime equivalents were (increasing performance and handling), nor will the pilot be pushing the highly expensive to maintain or replace engine (which will reduce top speed and climb), nor attempting war-time manoeuvres and G that could needlessly stress the airframe, so it all gets very muddy.

Perhaps you should ask some owners and pilots whether they think a theoretical reduction in airspeed of 5mph because of cannon fairing and a rear view mirror reduces their joy? (I'm guessing they don't think its either relevant or has any negatively noticeable effect)

As 'what ifs', maybe it would be interesting to build a prototype Spitfire or a Speed Spitfire... But for what you're after, I think an early mark1 or as Pbehn suggests, a PR Spit (take you pick of mark)... though bear in mind, the further down the line of Spitfire performance and evolution you go, the bigger the compromise in weight, handling and engine maintenance expense. It really is going to depend on your definition of 'joy'!

 

[AndyRicco]

Well, What mods are you talking about?? They wont be carrying the weight of armour or guns for starters. They will only rarely be flying with anything like a full tank. The rear view mirror is probably quite useful to *any* pilot. The ejector stubs add performance. The few other extraneous lumps and bumps like the bulges and cannon fairings in later marks don't have very much effect because they also have hugely increased horsepower. Modern radios weigh a fraction of wartime ones, etc.

Afterall, its a Spitfire. Thats what the owner is celebrating. And given that modern Spitfires are unlikely to be flying at the kind of loaded weights their wartime equivalents were (increasing performance and handling), nor will the pilot be pushing the highly expensive to maintain or replace engine (which will reduce top speed and climb), it all gets very muddy.

Perhaps you should ask some owners and pilots whether they think a theoretical reduction in airspeed of 5mph because of cannon fairing and a rear view mirror reduces their joy? (I'm guessing they don't think its either relevant or has any negatively noticeable effect)

I get your point. But all those little things add up..
Spitfire PL983 are a pilot favourite, its quite a bit faster than a regular IX across the whole speed range.
Another spitfires that where higly regarded, where the ee606 and ar213 before the rebuild to wartime spec mk1. According to the pilots who flew her, she was something truly special.

 

[pbehn]

I get your point. But all those little things add up..
Spitfire PL983 are a pilot favourite, its quite a bit faster than a regular IX across the whole speed range.
Another spitfires that where higly regarded, where the ee606 and ar213 before the rebuild to wartime spec mk1. According to the pilots who flew her, she was something truly special.

I am sure the pilots did love them but the owners werent so keen. As I understand it the costs are way higher than SplitRz posted, $2 million gets you a restored Merlin, not a restored plane. As a member of the public, if I see a restored Spitfire, I prefer it to look as they did in combat.

 

[fubar57]

I prefer it to look as they did in combat.

.....and on the ground

 

[AndyRicco]

Dont get me wrong guys. I do get why they restore them to wartime specification, but it would be nice to see something other than a regular IX for a change.

 

[Airframes]

A number of years ago, a replica of the prototype Spitfire was built, and test flown by an old one time friend of mine (sadly lost touch with him) who was a former BBMF pilot. The aircraft is now in a museum.
Apparently, it handled and to an extent, performed as the original, but was a "dream" of its creator/owner, and went no further (especially after U/C failure on landing), the only point of the "exercise" being to re-create a replica of the prototype for posterity, and, I presume, the dedication and joy of achievement of the designer / owner.
So, if "someone" wants to create a replica of the "Speed" Spitfire, or, indeed, build a new, "super doopa" cleaned-up, speed - record busting, new build version, then fine, let them go ahead.
But why ?!!
The cost of building would be enormous, possibly prohibitive, and the build time extensive. with all of this just to prove a point or satisfy a whimsical dream ?
A Spitfire is a Spitfire, just as a Mustang is a Mustang, or a Messerschmitt is a Messerschmitt, regardless of Mark or origin, and all should be seen as they were at the time, not what they might have been at some time.

So I'm now off to convert a concourse 1965 Ferrari Dino into a speed record dune buggy ..................

 

[pbehn]

.....and on the ground

I was once driving out of Whitby, a small coastal port in Yorkshire. Flat land to the left, cliffs and the sea to the right. Suddenly a Spitfire appeared on my left and dropped down over the cliffs down to sea level it was just in front of the car when it went out of view, a completely unforgettable sight and sound. Its always nice to see them fly, but if they never did again that memory is enough for me. Same with the Mynarski Lancaster flying directly over my mothers house as we were stood outside her front door.

 

[pbehn]

If I had the money it would be a PR MK XI without the extra oil tank and D-Day stripes. (pic from wiki)

 

[Engineman]

Quite a bit of mixed-up information about the build and registration of airframes in this thread.
Overall, many countries have different regulations for the licensing, regulation and operation of aircraft. Some countries recognise other countries regulations.
VERY generally, I would suggest that in the USA, you can build and operate experimental aircraft with quite relaxed regulations.
In UK, the regulations are stricter and anything not built or operated in conformity with the original recognised specification will require detailed and expensive approval process.
In Europe similar regulations apply, with German approval regulations possibly stricter and, some countries not really wanting to have regulation for non-commercial aircraft.
Generally, in UK/Europe strict time and flying hours limits are applied to many aircraft parts, like engines, hoses and tyres etc.
So, I believe that a new-build non-standard "Spitfire" might possibly be easier to build and operate legally in the USA.

Eng

 

[pbehn]

Quite a bit of mixed-up information about the build and registration of airframes in this thread.
Overall, many countries have different regulations for the licensing, regulation and operation of aircraft. Some countries recognise other countries regulations.
VERY generally, I would suggest that in the USA, you can build and operate experimental aircraft with quite relaxed regulations.
In UK, the regulations are stricter and anything not built or operated in conformity with the original recognised specification will require detailed and expensive approval process.
In Europe similar regulations apply, with German approval regulations possibly stricter and, some countries not really wanting to have regulation for non-commercial aircraft.
Generally, in UK/Europe strict time and flying hours limits are applied to many aircraft parts, like engines, hoses and tyres etc.
So, I believe that a new-build non-standard "Spitfire" might possibly be easier to build and operate legally in the USA.

Eng

How does that affect re sale value. Back in the day when I raced motorcycles, a machine operated by a racing team maintained to a proper schedule for replacing parts wasnt worth a great deal, a bike put together by a guy in his garage was almost worthless, simply because you have to re build the engine yourself to be sure, if the engine blew up the replacement with new parts cost more than the bike did to start with. If I was in the market for a plane costing millions I wouldnt look at a home built example to some guys own ideas of plane design.

 

[EwenS]

Spitfire for sale £2.95m fully restored in Australia

1943 Supermarine Spitfire IX | Restored Vintage Aircraft

Explore the 1943 Supermarine Spitfire IX. Originally built for the RAF, this Spitfire served operationally with 331 Norwegian Squadron.

www.platinumfighters.com

And one in the UK £3.75m incl VAT.

1943 Vickers-Supermarine Spitfire Mk L.F. IX | Platinum Fighter Sales

The 1943 Vickers-Supermarine Spitfire MK L.F. IX is a restored aircraft with a rich combat history. Available for inspection by appointment.

www.platinumfighters.com

Got to watch them local sales taxes/ VAT whatever.

 

[SaparotRob]

Why is it the stuff I love costs too much?