Read the forum code of contact
By: - 17th February 2004 at 12:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
They are an odd lot, the PFA.
:rolleyes:
Moggy
By: - 17th February 2004 at 12:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Tell me about it. This is the reply I got:
Dear Daren
It will take drastic modifications to make a Taylor Mono resemble a
Spitfire, and I doubt it would be a good proposition.
A much closer starting point would be a War Sea Fury or Thunderbolt, which are also PFA accepted designs and a much better basis for a spitfire replica.
With Regards
for The Popular Flying association
Francis Donaldson
Chief Engineer
By: - 17th February 2004 at 12:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
PFA
The days of designing flying machines on the back of fag packets have long gone.The CAA,JAA and now the Great God EASA have put an end to 'enteprenual' a/c.
By: - 17th February 2004 at 13:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Daz,
Just a question here.
The Jabifire or Spitiru ;) is a bit pricey, but a very attractive aircraft once completed.
Might it not be a better idea to assemble a five or six member group around one of these, rather than going the solo route?
Moggy
By: - 17th February 2004 at 13:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
As much as I'd like to, I simply couldn't afford even a share in one - hence the need to build a much cheaper Spitfire replica with a VW engine!!
Something similar has been done - in fact, it's been done twice - but it amazes me that the PFA so quickly struck the idea off. Fair enough, it's entrepreneurial (or however you want to spell it), but I would have thought they'd be the least bit positive about it.
(When I say it's been done twice, Ed Johancsik's MkXIV and a "Sportfire" (VW-powered Mk24 look-alike) have made it to the sky - see attached.)
By: - 17th February 2004 at 13:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That's a pretty broad interpretation of the phrase 'look-alike' ;)
But good luck to you all the same.
Moggy
By: - 17th February 2004 at 13:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That's a pretty broad interpretation of the phrase 'look-alike' ;)
Is this better? ;)
By: - 17th February 2004 at 20:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Daz,
That converted Titch looks absolutely awful and resembles a cartoon series on the Spit. I have replied on the Avi8 website to your question there. It seems to me that Francis Donaldson wrote a fine response to you since he was absolutely right. Why reinvent the wheel. If you can afford it then go for the Aussie Spit - either single or 1.5 seat version - if not but time is available and cheap then the Isaacs Spitfire is excellent. Do not become yet another doodling timewaster for the PFA - they have far too many already. If you had any idea just what you would be involved with in terms of expensive design and structural analysis with a significantly modified existing design you would never even start that daydream.
Cheers,
Trapper 69
By: - 17th February 2004 at 22:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The whole purpose of the exercise was to create an affordable, easy to build Spitfire replica that was to be VW-powered. If I could afford a SuperMarine Spitfire 26, believe me I'd have snapped one up long ago. Fact is, I can't, and with my $hit pay, ain't no way it's gonna happen.
I've considered the Isaacs Spitfire before, but where can I find an affordable Continental 0-200....??
If Mr Donaldson had given me an explanation as to WHY the idea was flawed, then I'd be happy at that. But he hasn't stated his objections, so I'm left to wonder why and try and get a straighter answer.
Believe me I have considered the implications this thing might create, and I AM NOT a "doodling timewaster"! :mad:
By: - 17th February 2004 at 22:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Daz,
I reckon he did give you a straight answer and if you needed amplification you just got it from me. Lets face it ,any Titch or Taylor Monoplane conversion is going to look terrible though I admit beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If you realised how much you would be involved in financially to prepare an acceptable design submission for the PFA to consider you would never start to try. Beleive me the cost of a time expired O-200 would be cheap in comparison and then you could rebuild it under the watchful eye of a friendly D licence holder. The Isaacs design is a gem - just ask anyone who has flown it. Hope this helps. I do appreciate the tribulations of the impoverished aviator having been one myself for most of my 50 years as a pilot.
Cheers,
Trapper 69:cool:
By: - 17th February 2004 at 22:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Daz. Skybolt wrote:
It seems to me that Francis Donaldson wrote a fine response to you since he was absolutely right. Why reinvent the wheel.
I have to totally agree with this.
You admit in another posting I have seen that you are not an engineer; this would mean straight away that you would need to pay a third party for much of the modification design work - the costs would be enormous far outweiging the cost of a suitable engine for an Issacs Spitfire. I think you are totally underestimating the cost of getting approval for a new design or drastically modified existing design.
Whatever some people may say: PFA engineering are helpful with advice but are not there to do the design work or the stress calculations for you. If Francis Donaldson suggests your idea may not be feasable then I would go along with that. Alternatively, you could put an information package together with detailed drawings etc and submit them as a project.
Good luck
EwenT
By: - 17th February 2004 at 23:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hello Daz,
I don't want to sound depressing, or rude, but I will have to second what EwenT and Skybolt have said. Modifying the Taylor Titch is a very expensive exercise and the end resault will not justify the cost and troubles. The end product is a stubby little design (judging by your exelent web site) and has nothing in common with the Spitfire except an elliptical (sp??) wing, but hey, my Cap 10 has one too, so maybe I'm flying a Spitfire replica! Well, the last remark is maybe below the belt, but you see what I'm getting at. Having an elliptical wing does not make it a Spitfire. No, the Spitfire is a machine of eligant lines, no matter how you look at it. There for I'm more than little amused when I look at some of the designs on your website. How on earth some of them can be called scale replicas of a Spitfire, or even a look a like, is beyond me, I'm sorry.
Back to you project. I think the only way forward for you is to go for the Issacs Spitfire. It is the nearest you can get to the lines of a real Spitfire. I nearly started building one my self about 10 years ago, and from the information I had gathered, it is a relatively stright forward design and well suited to a first time builder. At this time, I don't think you will need to worry too much about the engine. At the moment, you can get approx. half time O-200 for about 4000-5000 dollars. And you would not be needing the engine for, say, five years, as I think it would take you at least that time to build the aircraft. That is, say, about 700 pounds a year for the engine, if you decide on the the O-200. The engine should be the least af your worries!
Building an aircraft needs space and tools. If you are lucky, you could get both of these essentials for a small amount of money, or nothing. How ever renting space for the aircraft and buying all the tools will set you back some serious amount of money. And you have not even have started the building of an aeroplane yet! Then come all the materials, and they are not cheap! Any old wood will not do, and if you have to buy something with an 'Aviation Grade' stamped on it, be prepared to open your wallet. However expensive the materials, please do not be tempted to use anything you can get your hands on.
Now I think it is time for me to stop this really depressing rambling. I know what you are going through at the moment. I've been there. For one year I had an ACRO SPORT II biplane on mind, and it was an endless tourture, as it was no way I could afford it on my Flight Instuctors paychech. Reluctantly, I led go of it after much soul searching. But my lunacy went from bad to worse and now I've two projects going, both antiques.
I wish you good luck with your project, what ever it is going to be. Before you start, make a complete cost estimate (don''t focus just on the engine, but the whole thing) and then add 100% on top of that and you should be close to the correct end figure.
By: - 18th February 2004 at 08:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well, in that case then, despite all the b*ll*cks, I'm just gonna have to get on with Isaacs Spit No.3 then!
:rolleyes:
By: - 18th February 2004 at 09:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Daz
I've been following your project from the sidelines as I was in a very similar position to you twenty years ago when I gave serious thought to designing and building a simple single seat mildly aerobatic aircraft for fun flying. I have no engineering training and fairly quickly realised it was well beyond my capabilities - both in terms of expertise and cost.
I then looked at existing designs but nothing came of it for various reasons. If I had gone with it 20 years ago it would be flying by now. Instead I am only just now looking at a homebuilt again (Lynn William's Flitzer - a 20's style single seater biplane).
I think you have been given some sound advice and all I would say is start now while you are young even if it is only in a small way so that you can spread the cost. Dont do as I did and wait as you will only regret it.
grow45
By: - 18th February 2004 at 09:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Go for it Daz!
Isaacs Spit #3 it is.
I look forward to standing on the strip when it has its first flight :)
Moggy
By: - 18th February 2004 at 09:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You can fly the beast, Moggy ;)
By: - 18th February 2004 at 09:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Daz,
Glad you have accepted all the advice. If I can be of any help then give me a call. The Isaacs Spitfire is a design you will be proud of when it eventually emerges. Have you joined your local PFA strut yet? They are a really useful source of assistance to a first time builder.
Cheers,
Trapper 69
By: - 18th February 2004 at 09:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not yet - need to join the PFA first!
Sorry if I appeared a bit narky - too many days thinking about this damn thing, especially at work when a bunch of muppets are getting at you!! :rolleyes:
By: - 18th February 2004 at 13:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Go for it Daz; you won't reget it. I'm sure there will be plenty of help and encouragement forthcomming. :)
EwenT.
By: - 18th February 2004 at 21:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Daz , mail me your snail mail address and I'll send you a couple of copies of the PFA mag ( new one just came today ) and if you need any storage or workspace I have adequate room available :)
Posts: 18,353
By: DazDaMan - 17th February 2004 at 10:06
Has anyone on here ever had a good idea for an aircraft, only to have it snubbed or discarded by the PFA??
I submitted my ideas recently for a Taylor Monoplane converted into a Spitfire replica, and they weren't very keen on that - said it might be better to build a WAR Sea Fury or Thunderbolt into one :eek:!!
Quite strange, actually, as Terry Taylor seems to think it'll work. After all, this guy in Canada built a MkXIV from a Taylor Titch....