Thanks William

A great day to have a birthday!

Thanks!

Hello Peter, She flew very well and the landing incident was unfortunately due to pilot error. Now residing on static display in the Kent Battle of Britain Museum in Kent, which is well worth the visit as it celebrates the lives of both RAF and Luftwaffe pilots who flew in the Battle.

Were you born a "Pratt" or have you just become one recently?

Thanks, that's exactly what I thought and why I built her!

Once in a while it makes a change to get a comment from someone who has absolutely no idea what they are talking about!

Howard, the Spitfire was repaired after the landing incident and flew again until the accident which was due to pilot error. I actually cut the fuselage behind the cockpit, leaving the main plane intact should anyone want to restore her to flying condition, before transporting to the museum on the IOW. The new owners then cut the wings off!!! before transporting to the Southampton museum. The Spit now resides in the capable hands of the Kent Battle of Britain museum. Have you read my book about the Spit, if that doesn't put you off building your own, then good luck and you're probably do it!

Clive, Thank you for that info, I didn't know it crashed again. I would like to read your book.

Clive, I have read your book. Your determination was unbelievable. It made me think, imagine, dream, you have a good sense of hummer, you did make me lough. You certainty met some great people along the way. I am very surprised on some of the comments people have written, specially after working with such high calibre people.

Clive, I have read your book. Your determination was unbelievable. It made me think, imagine, dream, you have a good sense of hummer, you did make me laugh. You certainty met some great people along the way. I am very surprised on some of the comments people have written, specially after working with such high calibre people. Sorry for Claire Roberts reply, I didn't change user.

Any one that makes an air-plane and then flights it has dun something special. A spitfire is even more special. To build a look alike from wood with a converted car engine is fantastic. It will still have cost a lot, I estimate £150.000 but reasonable to run. Just a note for some people, A Spitfire say a Duxford rebuild, £3.000.000.00 min. I Merlin Engine min £500.000, are even £800.000 To operate it, £2.000 per hr. So unless you are a multi multi millionaire or a corporation, or the Government sponsored RAF Battle of Britain Memorial flight. you have no chance what so ever. Clive well dun. If the CAA test pilot hadn't meased up, you would have flown 1000 hrs plus. But such is life.

Fair comment Chris and thanks for the compliment.

No with the half the weight and half the power it had the same power/weight ratio as the original Prototype

@@2598111 Not to mention that halving the wing loading reduces the power requirement considerably!

Nothing wrong with plane, it was pilot error!

Clive Ducros I see. Thanks. Spitfire were great planes.

They certainly were Mick!

No actually it's a 4500 rpm Jaguar. Get a life!!!

Chad The most important allied fighter of the war, there are many surviving examples, around 50 flying and many more in museums for a good reason. Spitfires shot down virtually every German plane flown from Bf 109`s to Me 262`s, Ju 52`s and so many more. Spitfires were in the Battle of Britain, Malta, North Africa, Sicily, Italy, France, Belgium, Holland and in Germany at the end of the war. It went on to serve into the 1950`s. The phoney war was all the fighting that Britain was involved in for 5 years.

Certainly its not a Spitfire! But it's a pretty accurate full size replica with a V12 Jaguar that after being converted for aviation use, i.e. twin plugs and ignition systems, dry sumped oil and purpose built reduction gearbox, performed very well. I guess you're referring to a twin blade propellor, as its only got one engine? There was nothing wrong with these props on the original prototype and early Mk 1 production models, apart from the fact they were fixed pitch. The prop I fitted was constant speed, if you know what that means, and gave the Spit a respectable performance. Suggest you do a little more reading about about both the early Spitfires and my replica before posting any other comments!

The engine and reduction gear were checked, especially the quill shaft after the landing incident. All was fine thanks to the pilot cutting the engine. The engine developed enough horses and it flew very well! The last flight power loss was due to the pilot not using the friction nut on the throttle during the attempted go-around!! Give the book a try, I'm told it's a good read!

Thanks for your interest!

Thanks Nick. The all up weight was 2,200 lbs so it was half the weight and power of the original with a lighter wing loading so it performed pretty well!

Woo.hoo.. that's very light for a full-sized, 37 feet wingspan aeroplane abt 10lbs/sqft. I'm guessing it is v. docile in the air. Gorgeous thing. By the way I'm very curious to know if it did use the original airfoils for both the wing and tailplane? and was it pitch/elevator sensitive?

Yes, she was a delight to fly Nick and easy to land with a stalling speed of just over 40 MPH. The wing rib profiles were built using NACA 2200 as the original, same for the tailplane. It was pitch sensitive and during the flight trials had very similar characteristics to the original Mk 1, according to the test pilot Pete Thorn who flew with the RAF Battle of Britain flight.

Hi Clive, I really like the K5054 version of the spitfire. It has that sublime "race horse" look. The other contestant being the N17 speed spitfire. I got hold of some mkI (type 300) blueprints, no where near complete. Did you ever have access to the original blueprints of K5054? I would love to know where I can track those down.

Oh and these days an aviation worthy 650hp inline liquid cooled is not impossible to find

It was plenty strong enough. The structure survived a stall 40 feet above the ground!!