Spitfire Mk.IX 1t:1 Scale Replica

[magoo]

The man built built a Mk.IX replica, full size, Allison 1710, Prop from a DC3, wood single spar main wing, all on a tight budget.

For those who've seen it already, my apologies. This is inspiring.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzkoTulqA1U

[Bomber_12th]

I have enjoyed seeing this aircraft at both Oshkosh and Chino. I love the story about how the mirror came to be, and the unique detail/effect of the elevator position in-flight, being just as it is on the real Spitfires.

Another full-scale Allison-powered Spitfire replica, built using the same Jurca plans, is currently advancing near completion, owned by a Jack Roethlisberger, located in Pennsylvania.

[glh]

Have to give the gentleman credit for a really terrific job. And the mirror story was really cool. There are more than likely a few parts in the aircraft that were adapted from other intended uses.

[Ivan]

It certainly looks like a Spitfire of some kind but maybe not quite a Mk.IX.
You have to admire someone who actually goes out and builds something like this.
I wonder if he took out some of the goofy stuff that was in the original design and did he make some improvements?

- Ivan.

[sixstrings5859]

Amazing video! Thanks for the link. Anything is possible if you really want it.

[Bomber_12th]

From the firewall back, the aircraft was built using the well known 1/1-scale Marcel Jurca plans, called the "MJ-100". (There are also 3/4-scale Spitfire plans by Jurca, called the "MJ-10".)
http://www.marcel-jurca.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=209&Itemid=245&lang=fr

The Deford example comes the closest to looking like a real Mk.IX than any other flying replica so-far. Of course there are some subtle nuances overall, and of course the engine cowlings/nose, that if it was closer to that of the original Mk.IX, it would look that much more original.

Pictures of the Deford full-scale replica:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ned_harris/29456299246/sizes/h/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/spudshot/15671279316/sizes/k/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/wingsnstuff/8598202060/sizes/k/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/68151307@N06/7002086282/sizes/l

Pictures of a real Mk.IX:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/34709414@N02/8518741805/sizes/o/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/50393882@N00/26447255636/sizes/h/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/hugh_dodson/33443711425/sizes/o/ (https://www.flickr.com/photos/50393882@N00/26447255636/sizes/h/)

[magoo]

He acquired the Allison because his tools would fit.:angel:

Having fiddled with old English cars most of my life, I'm assuming he's refering to Whitworth, BSF, BA, and/or Imperial AF fasteners.

I've got a feeling that the Allison may be more affordable these days than a Merlin, there could lie a reality...?

But thinking about fastener standards, and understanding that British engines in the 1940's would certainly follow British Standards, what about the Packard Merlins built in North America. Were they built with American standard fasteners?

"Yes or no" has me wondering about USA built interchangeability with the British Merlins, and War time Canada being a prime environment for that to happen....

(?)

[b52bob]

There is another built by a man in his back yard. It's in Bendigo in Victoria, Au, at the local version of our VFW. Done in fiberglass. Have a pic somewhere around here and will try to post it.

[Ivan]

From the firewall back, the aircraft was built using the well known 1/1-scale Marcel Jurca plans, called the "MJ-100". (There are also 3/4-scale Spitfire plans by Jurca, called the "MJ-10".)
http://www.marcel-jurca.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=209&Itemid=245&lang=fr


The kinds of things I was thinking of are not really external appearance issues unless you take a lot of very precise measurements and weigh things.

Obviously the engine weights will be different considering that the Allison is probably quite a bit lighter than the equivalent Merlin 60 or 70 series engine and its associated superchargers.
The DC-3 Propeller would not weigh the same as the 4 blade unit on a real Mk.IX.
The wood construction would probably shift the weights and balances as would the lack of real armament and oxygen, armour plate, self sealing tanks, etc.
The Wing is obviously different in construction so it is unlikely to have followed the exact NACA 2200 series airfoils used by the real thing. There is no real point of using a thin wing section unless you need the performance of the original and the thin wings caused other problems.
The real Spitfire from the Mk.V onwards had tires that were really too thick to fit entirely inside the fairly thin wing section to the point that the upper wing skin over the wheel well was just a thin layer of aluminum with external bracing. That would be a pretty silly thing to copy on a replica made with a wooden wing.
The width of the wheels also made the fairings stand away from the underside of the wing though this was not very obvious.
Obviously the guns are dummies so one has to wonder why he chose to put in 4 x 20 mm cannon fairings instead of the more typical Mk.IXc armament of 2 x 20 mm & 4 x .303 or the Mk.IXe armament of 2 x 20 mm & 2 x ,50 Cal.

- Ivan.

[Ivan]

Just had another amusing thought:

The Spitfire Mk.IX and Mk.XVI were exactly the same airframe (though the Mk.XVI tended to have more bubbletops).
The technical difference was that the Mk.IX was equipped with a Rolls Royce Merlin while the Mk.XVI was equipped with a Packard Merlin.

I came across this designation discussion when one version of a Spitfire was having its engine replaced with an engine from the other manufacturer and some people were asking about whether it would have a designation change as well.

Now if Rolls Royce == Mk.IX and Packard == Mk.XVI, then Allison == Mk.????

- Ivan.

[Panther_99FS]

:redfire::redfire::redfire: