|
|
Post by flyjoe180 on Jul 15, 2007 12:11:17 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Jul 15, 2007 12:44:32 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by flyjoe180 on Jul 15, 2007 12:55:18 GMT 12
Ta Craig, never knew that. I see they also distribute the Titan Mustang and a 80% Tiger Moth too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jul 15, 2007 13:49:17 GMT 12
"Are they like a Spitfire version of a Thunder Mustang?" Sadly nowhere near in the same league - but then, what is? I think they are in the ultralight class, and thus are small, light and slow. There are several in NZ, next time you're in Tauranga have a look in a few hangars as I saw two being built there last year. An interesting shot on that link, it makes it almost look right. From almost every other angle it leaves me thinking "why do they call that a Supermarine Spitfire?" www.supermarineaircraft.com/About.htm |
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Aug 3, 2007 11:12:21 GMT 12
This is quite a good article about the man behind the idea.
From today's The Australian.
Spitfires scramble again
Steve Creedy, Aviation writer | August 03, 2007
SPITFIRES are still gracing the skies over Europe, and elsewhere, thanks to the persistence of a Queenslander determined to ensure that legend lives on.
Michael O¿Sullivan checks out a replica Spitfire on the airfield at Toogoolawah west of Brisbane
Mike O'Sullivan's passion for the legendary World War II fighter saw him spend millions of dollars and seven years working out how to build the planes.
He has now sold 82 kits around the world, many of them to enthusiasts in Europe and Britain, and this year launched a new plane that is 90 per cent scaled-down replica of the original.
"It's very, very close to the original," Mr O'Sullivan said. "It's the closest that's ever been built since World War II."
Mr O'Sullivan's company bears the Supermarine brand of the original manufacturer, a name it adopted with blessings from the founder's daughters, and operates out of a small factory near Brisbane.
Several people have tried to emulate his success, but all of them have so far failed, in one case with tragic consequences.
"People always ask why and I always say, well, they weren't as stupid as me," he said with a laugh.
"I didn't know when to quit."
The Queenslander's interest in the warbirds was kindled at an early age on his family cattle station, which not only boasted a working Avro Anson bomber but a menagerie of assorted airframes and parts from World War II fighters.
"Basically, I knew I couldn't afford to buy an original one myself so I had to build one," Mr O'Sullivan said. He set out to build his first prototype, a single-seat 75 per cent replica, but that proved easier said than done.
He initially had no detailed plans, but he did have some old manuals from the family and a good concept of where he wanted to go.
But he was tackling a plane that was exceptionally difficult to build, even in its original form.
"The funny thing is I thought I'd get smart in the early days and I'd rehash a lot of it and make it easier to build," he said.
"It really didn't work, I really ended up more and more having to go back to the plans and do it is they did and use the old techniques." One of the problems, he said, was that the all-metal Spitfire was originally built by people who were used to wooden aircraft.
"If you take your mind back to when they built these, all the aircraft prior were made of wood," he said.
"So they had hundreds of these woodworkers who were told 'we've got this new stuff that's just come out and it's called aluminium and we're going to make an aluminium aeroplane'.
"And when you look at the drawings and the plans, the Spitfire was built like a wooden aeroplane using aluminium."
Mr O'Sullivan's prototype finally flew in November 1994, and started him on the path that led first to an 80 per cent replica with a dual cockpit and now to the 90 per cent Mark 26b.
Moving to the bigger plane involved as additional three years' development and another $2 million before it soared into the skies about nine months ago.
The upshot of those years of research and pain getting the designs certified in Australia, Europe, Britain, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa and the US is that enthusiasts can now buy a Spitfire kit that is quick and easy to build.
Some 700 hours of the construction work is completed in the factory before the kit is shipped and Supermarine has invested in precision tooling to make sure that an average person who is good with their hands can put the plane together.
Production volume is kept low to ensure quality.
O'Sullivan said he would not go through the process again and this was why, he suspects, it has been successfully replicated elsewhere. "The thing is we've developed the techniques and we understand it now," he said.
"It makes it easier now."
Supermarine still produces both kits, with the Mark 26b selling for $168,000 and its smaller counterpart fetching just under $147,000.
"It's generally wealthy people, of course, and they're enthusiasts," Mr Sullivan said.
"Up until 12 months to two years ago our age group was probably 50 to 80 years old.
"Now we're finding the younger ones are looking at it too.
"The Spitfire is an incredible, unique aeroplane in that everyone basically knows what it is."
Britain has so far been the kit's biggest market but Mr O'Sullivan hopes that the US market will start to open up.
He believes it has been slow to do so because Americans prefer to buy home-built kits and are oriented towards their own legendary warplane, the Mustang.
"If we built over there we would have had enormous sales but because we're outsiders its harder," he said.
"We are breaking in there - we've got four or five aircraft - but that's against England where we've got 40 orso.
"France is opening up now, New Zealand's been wonderful, South Africa, Scotland, Canada."
The planes have also been getting good reviews from pilots and enthusiast publications.
The fact that the plane carries no armour or weapons means it is lighter than the original and does not need the powerful Merlin engines used in the original models.
Instead, they are optimised for normally aspirated and supercharged versions of GM Isuzu V6 quad-cam automotive engines.
But Mr O'Sullivan said Spitfire veterans and test pilots who have flown the replicas have found they have the same flight characteristics as the original.
And, of course, they are unique.
"It's been said by people who have flown a lot of aeroplanes that there's nothing that flies as nice as a Spitfire," he said. "It was difficult to build - still is - but, boy, it just outflies anything."
He believes this is a combination ofthe British engineering and plane's sleek lines.
"It's neutral plane in that wherever you point to it will go," he says. "If you do that in a Cessna, or pretty much anything built now it just won't do it.
"And there's a lot of truth in the point that if it looks good and sleek, it generally flies that way."
So why not build a full-size replica? Mr O'Sullivan said the costs would treble, driven by the need for a bigger engine, and market penetration would slump.
People would also find the bigger plane harder to handle on the ground and it would take up more space in hangars, a selling point for the smaller planes in expensive Europe.
"I can honestly say there's no money in us going to full size," he said.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Aug 3, 2007 20:09:22 GMT 12
This guy is having a laugh, isn't he? I'm sure Clive du Cros and Marcel Jurca would disagree with him for a start... There have been several MUCH more realistic FULL SIZE replica Spitfires that actually resemble the original. Supermarine Aircraft's Mk26b is a mere attempt at the concept of the shape in my opinion, and looks nothing like the real thing. Everything is either mishapen or out of proportion on the Mk26b www.supermarineaircraft.com/images/P1000827.JPGLook at the tichy little prop, the oddly shaped tail, the huge bulbous canopy, etc - nothing like the real Spitfire. The Jurca and du Cros examples are however spot on for the right shape and dimensions. I'm not trying to diss the product, obviously many people like the Mk26 but he really shouldn't make such statements when I'm certain he's well aware of his competitor's products that are much more realistic. |
|
|
|
Post by flyjoe180 on Aug 3, 2007 20:40:06 GMT 12
Couldn't agree more. Maybe Spitfirette might have been a better name?
|
|
|
|
Post by turboNZ on Jan 8, 2008 19:26:53 GMT 12
If he made that weird Cessna 140-type tailwheel into a small retracting unit, it would look so much better.
|
|
