OT - ME262 flies

A restored ME262 in flight

formatting link
Regards,

Kim Siddorn

Reply to
Kim Siddorn
Loading thread data ...

Fantastic

Reply to
Leslie

It would be interesting what they have done to the engines as the original Jumo's had very short operating times, measured in hours, between services and were un reliable.

Martin P

Reply to
campingstoveman

Yes but my understanding was that this was due to inferior materials rather than inherent design faults, with modern nickel alloys it may last longer.

AJH

Reply to
AJH

I would assume that rebuilding old engines with new materials would make the cost of putting the aircraft back in the air seriously prohibitive, it would be better to fit new modern engines.

Martin P

Reply to
campingstoveman

In message , campingstoveman writes (re: engines in restored Me. 262)

formatting link
for general information on the (new-build) aircraft, of which this is one.

formatting link
gives the engines as GE J-85 turbojets of 2859lb. st. - quite a lot more than the originals, for which no doubt today's pilots are very grateful...

Reply to
Andrew Marshall

So full size replica's, not the real thing then. Never mind.

Reply to
campingstoveman

Ah. The URL was passed on to me as a restoration - still, it's an excellent project & for the technical, here's some engine info ........

formatting link
Regards,

Kim Siddorn

Reply to
Kim Siddorn

Rather like this:

formatting link
I wonder, why 90% scale?

Reply to
robertharvey

To keep the lines of the original aircraft may have limited the size of engine available so it was reduced to take the what they could get I guess. The engine only puts out 200hp, your average Merlin was a serious lot more than that.

Reply to
campingstoveman

I would think that if it was less than 90% then only dwarfs would be able to fly it, I've sat in a real one (sadly not flown one) and it's a tight squeeze.

Don't forget that this thing is just a light homebuilt aircraft with about

1/8 th the weight of the real one and with a corresponding engine output. It would rip apart at the seams if you tried to dive it to 400 knots. Put some Brownings in the wings and it wouldn't leave the ground.

Julian.

Reply to
Julian

The web site describes it as 'approaching 90%' implying it is actually smaller. It certainly looks a lot smaller than the real thing. It is not the first time that reduced-size replica spitfires have been produced. I don't have any details to hand though. Building an 'almost new-build' 100% scale Spitfire is possible, but it costs a fortune and there are very few companies that can handle the job. It certainly wouldn't be a homebuild project. Regards Peter

Reply to
Peter J Seymour

There's quite a few, the Isaacs Spitfire springs to mind

formatting link
Remember that these scale (and full size) homebuilds are really just a light aircraft with the shape of a Spitfire. The construction of the airframe is totally different, and also the handling characteristics WRT stability and stall speeds will be totally different. A Spitfire replica with 'replica' handling and flying characteristics would not gain its 'Permit to Fly' and be allowed to fly.

It would be easily posible, it would be just 10% bigger that the 90% version! I do a tiny amount of work as an Inspector for the Popular Flying association, and I know of plenty of people who sink 1000's of hours of their spare time into building these things. But, and it's a big but, there's a world of difference between a homebuild full size replica with a V8 Chevrolet engine and the real thing. For instance ISTR that a single blade for a Rotol prop costs about £2000! and that the hourly cost of flying one is about £1000.

If you can separate the lightweight homebuilt replica aircraft that operate on a permit to fly from the genuine warbird rebuild/restoration that takes place at places like Booker (I think) and Duxford then you'll understand what the homebuilder can and can't accomplish.

Julian.

Reply to
Julian

But an 80% replica is indeed a home build, a company in Australia has bought the name Supermarine and the rights to build Spitfires, although they have scaled them down to match the largest engines available today since no one makes anything close to a Merlin.

formatting link
Greg

Reply to
Greg

That works out to 20 mpg at cruising, better than a Chelsea Tractor. Will we be seeing these on the school run ?

-- Regards,

John Stevenson Nottingham, England.

Visit the new Model Engineering adverts page at:-

formatting link

Reply to
John Stevenson

although they have

No Greg, the scaling procedure has nothing to do with available engines or power.

For a start, in the UK, the PFA/CAA limits engine power on homebuild aircraft to 260BHP, Max authorised take off weight to just over 1 ton, max design (dive) speed to 260 Knots and maximum stall speed in the landing config to 60MPH.

I suspect a Merlin weighs close to a ton anyway, so it's ruled out by default! And as you can also see nothing with more than a passing resemblance to a 'real' spitfire would qualify given the mandatory rules that apply.

Plenty of light aircraft with physical dimensions much larger than a Spitfire make do quite well with just 1/3 the BHP. But they don't have guns, cannons, armour plate, superchargers, intercoolers, pneumatic systems, airframes stressed to withstand 7G's at 400Knots etc etc.

I suspect this is rather too OT now, I better shut up :-)

Reply to
Julian

Fair enough for a home built, but does anyone make an engine comparable to a Merlin if someone wanted to produce a factory built Spit replica, which wouldn't have any such limitations?

Nor do they perform like one 8-)

Greg

Reply to
Greg

I don't think a factory replica would be posible. Such an aircraft if constructed (in the UK) would need to gain a Certificate of Airworthiness, issued by the CAA. Keeping it simplistic, the rules and regs today wouldn't allow this to happen. The only solution really is to rebuilt genuine aircraft, probably about 99% new, but nevertheless a rebuild.

I don't think any manufacturer makes the equivalent of a Merlin today, aero engines with that sort of power output have been turboprops for donkey's years, do a search for PT6 or PW123 perhaps.

formatting link
That said, I *believe* that in the States there are enough manufacturers of parts for the large radials that making one from scratch could be posible. Deep pockets required!

Julian.

Reply to
Julian

Yes from what I've read about the CAA I can quite believe it, "no sir you can't build a new Spit with modern materials and manufacturing teqhniques because it wouldn't be safe, but you can dig up a 1940's wreck and rebuild it..."

I gather that some recent airframe "rebuilds" have the absolute minimum of original parts required to be able to call it a rebuild, in truth they're a new airframe around an original Merlin.

Greg

Reply to
Greg

There was an American replica of a P51 Mustang called the "Thunder Mustang" which was produced in small numbers before its maker went out of business and which, although too heavy and fast to qualify for UK PFA regulations, is absolutely stunning (IMHO).

Here is a link to the fastest of these (an aircraft which currently holds several piston engined speed records) which might amuse

formatting link
The only thing which might make this not completely OT is that the engine (Ryan Falconer V12) is produced for several applications - boat, aircraft, car.

Christopher W.

Reply to
Christopher Wigdor

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.