Its the stuff you love that you havnt got, that costs too much. If they didnt cost too much you would have a massive stash of them.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Its the stuff you love that you havnt got, that costs too much. If they didnt cost too much you would have a massive stash of them.Why is it the stuff I love costs too much?
So young and yet so wise.Its the stuff you love that you havnt got, that costs too much. If they didnt cost too much you would have a massive stash of them.
If warbirds and Ferraris were available for 20 dollars, a substantial part of the population would be wiped out in a year. The last bike I raced could be bought by a 17 yr old, tuned to do 120MPH and ridden with no test or instruction at all under UK laws at the time, the results were as you would expect, a massive number of teenaged deaths, laws were changed very quickly.So young and yet so wise.
My life has been lived in a sort of bubble, that generation (my generation) are still buying superbikes, but now they use an inheritance and buy a bike that has literally twice the BHP that Kenny Roberts and Barry Sheene had when they were battling to be world champion. The results of this are exactly what anyone would expect from a 60+ year old rider treating public roads like a race track on a bike with 200BHP.Buncha' killjoys!
Yes. However, if you do the restoration right, the costs might be tax deductible.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.
Well its an often repeated opinion by long standing spit jocks like Johnnie Johnson, but the ix was widely considered the peak of the Spitfire mark in terms of the balance of handling and performance. Later marks were felt to steadily lose the wonderful control harmonisation and 'feel' as the weight and power gradually climbed - so there maybe a reason for the plethora of airworthy mark ix's.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.
As a weapon of war, the mark IX was a great allrounder. Good speed, climb, high altitude performance, armanent and still quite agile.Well its an often repeated opinion by long standing spit jocks like Johnnie Johnson, but the ix was widely considered the peak of the Spitfire mark in terms of the balance of handling and performance. Later marks were felt to steadily lose the wonderful control harmonisation and 'feel' as the weight and power gradually climbed - so there maybe a reason for the plethora of airworthy mark ix's.
As a weapon of war, the mark IX was a great allrounder. Good speed, climb, high altitude performance, armanent and still quite agile.
But in terms of pure handling and manouverability, the early marks where more delightful to fly.
Toni Bianchi who flew both the mark 1 AR213 and the mark IX MH434 during the 70s, had some interesting comments on how they did compare.
After the war mk1 AR213 was fitted with a more modern merlin 35 with approx 1400 hp, which had a lower reduction gear than normal, but still perfectly suitable for a mark 1 installation.
This would allow the propellor to rotate faster and achieve greater thrust
especially in the low to medium speed range.
Before filming the BOB movie, she was fitted with a new rotol 4 blade propeller from a mk IX, this modification enhanced the characteristics of an already remarkable aircraft.
Because of the lower reduction gear and a mismatched constant speed unit, her top speed was around 415 mph at 3000 rpm
after which the revs would increase regardless of the coarse pitch setting.
The aircraft accelerated at the most extraordinary rate. He could do a half Cuban 8 or 3/4 loop with a half roll on top at the end of the runway after take off, something he wouldn't dare with a later mark spitfire.
The continous climb rate was above 5000 ft per minute at +12 boost.
Compared to the MH434 in pure handling and pilots aircraft being flown for pleasure.
There was no comparison, the MK1
in the specification of AR213 excelled in all respects. Because of the heavier weight of MH434, she was more stable in flight and faster in a dive.
In 2004 the AR213 went through a rebuild and was converted back to a wartime mk1a specification. Sadly it tok away its unique performance and charm, and that is now only a delightful memory.
View attachment 753140
I dont know the mod state of the merlin 35 in AR213, but Toni did mentiond he saw +13 boost a few times during take off.Interesting tales of AR213. Some of the info here is worth a few comments. Back in the days, when Spitfire's were actually available to buy cheap(ish), the early marks with early engines became difficult to operate due to lack of early engines and the cost of rebuilding engines. It was possible to obtain later engines and mix and match to make an engine to suit.
In later times (certainly the last 30 years), the originality of early Spitfire's has become £££££££ important and the high cost of rebuilding early engines has become very worthwhile.
I think this is a good thing and generally, as commented, Warbird rebuilds are now often very accurate.
As regards the engines in AR213, I can only comment on the post above. Merlin Spitfires flying with UK built original Merlins used a 0.477:1 reduction ratio. This was the higher Rolls Royce ratio for "Fighter" aircraft and gave a higher propeller speed than the lower 0.42:1 ratio that Rolls Royce generally used on Bombers. The reason was that on a bomber with lower airspeed capability, a larger diameter propeller could be used, turning slower with the lower ratio and with good efficiency. Now, the Merlin 35 was a post-war training engine for the Balliol and Athena training aircraft, single speed, single stage, medium supercharged with 4-bladed propeller and listed with a 0.471:1 reduction ratio (Lumsden). So, the reduction ratio was lower by a fraction and would actually give a very slightly lower prop speed. In fact, the only higher reduction ratio is the 0.479:1 listed for most Packard fighter Merlin's, and that again would be a tiny fraction. If the CSU/prop/engine were "mismatched" maybe it is not surprising if the prop pitch had problems.
As regards power, the listed ratings are quite similar, as you would expect because the Merlin 35 has training power ratings at moderate boost and those are generally not much higher than the Merlin III on 100 octane. Of course, the Merlin 35 was a much more developed engine than the Merlin III but the continuous climb powers are 970bhp +7 for the Merlin 35 and 990bhp +6.25 for the Merlin III. On 100 octane, the Merlin III 5min limit is 1310bhp +12, the Merlin 35 is 1225bhp +9.
So, on 100 octane, both engines ratings (and powers) are fairly similar, as you would expect. Certainly, you would have to exceed the Merlin 35 ratings to achieve a noticable difference. The only rating that is noticably better is the T/O of the Merlin 35, which by the standard would only be for T/O to 1000 ft though.
Another factor is the airframe suitability. The Spitfire Mk V is described as having to have a stronger engine mounting.
So, apart from the T/O rating, it would seem that there was not a huge difference in power between these engines, on 100 octane and in accordance with the ratings. The biggest differences would be if the Merlin III was on 87 octane and limited to 6,25lb Boost, but even then the continuous rating is virtually the same.
Interesting.
Eng
Yes, the Merlin 32 is listed for the Barracuda as a Medium supercharged, single speed, single stage engine. It had 2-piece blocks to work with +18lb Boost at low altitude, 5min rating 1,620bhp +18 1,500ft altitude! The +18lb boost needed the 2-piece blocks to be reliable enough.I dont know the mod state of the merlin 35 in AR213, but Toni did mentiond he saw +13 boost a few times during take off.
The merlin 35 is a very good choice for single stage spitfires because of its high mod state and reliability. I think most of the baby spits flying today have a merlin 35 installed.
Do you know what the difference is of a merlin 32 and a merlin 35 apart from the latter being a post war model?
So mechanically the same as a merlin 45 apart from 2 piece block?Yes, the Merlin 32 is listed for the Barracuda as a Medium supercharged, single speed, single stage engine. It had 2-piece blocks to work with +18lb Boost at low altitude, 5min rating 1,620bhp +18 1,500ft altitude! The +18lb boost needed the 2-piece blocks to be reliable enough.
Eng
Well, TBH, I suspect that Lumsden made the typo with the 0.471:1 prop ratio, I think that should be the 0.477:1. 35 similar to 45? The main difference is the 35 has a Coffman crankcase, the superchargers differ and the 45 was one-piece blocks. Big differences, but similar low-alt optimised.So mechanically the same as a merlin 45 apart from 2 piece block?
That engine in a mk 1 would be a killer combo at low altitude! The radiator on those early spits problably wouldn't allow run that kind of power for long, especially at low speeds.
Understand but remember there were 5600 + Mk IXs and 1054 Mk XVIs, many built in 1944/1945 when they werent always needed. Mk Is - "only" 1500 + built and survivors had to survive at least from 1941 onwards. The population of "available" MK IXs & MK XVIs for restoration is higher so there will likely be more of them today.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.
Many of them dont carry full oad of guns/cannons or original radios.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.
Why would that matter, nobody sane anywhere outside of Reno (which can only fly because the FAA in the USA has a "prototype class" which means you can fly with uncertified aircraft) is flying warbirds either at full engine performance (aside from take off for 30 seconds) or stressing the airframe anywhere near g-loading limits.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.
I think that thy do anyway, later Spitfires carried ballast in the tail to restore the CoG with heavier/ longer engines, with Griffon variants it was quite a load, around 100-120 lb from what I read.For obvious reasons some exceptions to the "to the drawing" apply, and its ok if you dont have a load of 20mm HE rounds spare. However if you take all the cannons out of a Spitfire, you may well have to install ballast to restore C of G.