So , did Carolyn have a point ?

Chris Martyr · Post by **Chris Martyr** » Tue Jan 31, 2012 9:13 pm

I too read Brians excellent article [Dec LA] and found it well written, interesting and informative and a great ,if not slightly mad initiative on the part of its instigator, Paul Fowler . But then , slightly mad eccentricities are the very cornerstone of our hobby are they not.

It certainly didn't ring any alarm bells with me, but after reading Carolyn Grace's letter [Jan LA] I re-read the article to see what had rattled her cage . I guess the caption to the picture on p.34 may have just triggered it. Then Brians remark about 'buying into a piece of aviation history'could be construed as slightly incorrect, and also just prior to the last paragraph ; " A formation of 12 Spitfires over Sywell , that would be impressive ". Well ,of course it would, 12 RR Merlins at 300mph ?

Which brings me onto the next point. When is a Spitfire not a Spitfire?
I had the fortune some years back of talking to one of the restorers at Tom Reillys Aircraft Museum at Kissimmee Fl. who explained how the amount of original components and assemblies that go back into a restoration, determine whether it is termed as an original restoration or a replica . Personally, I have no problem with a re-constructed warbird whether its classed as an original or a replica , but the Aussie kit-spit is really nothing more than a lookalike .

With ref. to Letters [Feb LA] Why shouldn't Carolyns Spitfire have a modern VHF installation and GPS , that makes it no different to any other historic warbird that is still flying , and rather a pity that there was the implication that flying of such aircraft is the preserve of the moneyed elite. I know several guys that fly historic warbirds at airshows and the only common denominator amongst them is that they are highly trained, extremely experienced pilots. As for the bit about the Haynes Spitfire Manual, Err , you probably wont find that one on the Grace households bookshelf.
It has to be said in Brians defence that nowhere in the article did he imply that it was anything other than a kit . But a great project ,great article . Replica ? No . Lookalike ? Definitely.

macconnacher · Post by **macconnacher** » Tue Jan 31, 2012 10:50 pm

In LAA judging terms the Mk26 Spitfire is a replica as is the Isaacs Fury and the Titan Mustang.
What the kit built Spit is not is a Vickers-Supermarine Spitfire and that is the one we like to look at and above all listen to. A 12 cylinder Jab or other engine does not hold a candle to the real thing as regards noise (surely music is a better term?)

mikehallam · Post by **mikehallam** » Wed Feb 01, 2012 12:58 pm

I agree with the above two posts comments and think Carolyn's LAA letter was a brave but necessary device to remind us not to get too carried away with our enthusiasm for look alikes.

It was too, IMHO, insulting in Feb's issue to refer to & denigrate the wealth of Spitfire owners. In fact without their massive financial inputs the flying examples kept & re-restored which we are privileged to see & hear, would have long ago rotted away or be dead as dust museum relicts.

We must remember the original a/c weren't toys but deperately needed weapons of war & not flown for fun. Many of those men, younger than most LAA pilots also died doing their bit.

Certainly look alikes can be attractive objects, e.g. look at the number of Far Eastern Rolex and Omega etc. watches available, but no-one should confuse them with the real thing.

mike hallam.

Jim Hargrave · Post by **Jim Hargrave** » Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:12 pm

I agree entirely with Mike Hallam that we now fly our aircraft for fun and relaxation which should never be forgotten. We are not professionals or military, so we are not bound by any convention other than getting the maximum enjoyment out of our hobby, so it is entirely up to ourselves how we do it within the limits of our own abilities and safety and consideration of others.
I actually like to see 'replica' aircraft as I appreciate the art of the model maker, in this case creating a balance of scale appeal and practical flying capability but I would not call them Replicas. To my own way of thinking about these aircraft I consider them to be TRIBUTE aircraft which I would call them as they reflect the essence of the original in a nostalgic way with due deference to those that built them and those that fought bravely in them on each side of a conflict, just as TRIBUTE BANDS pay homage to artists which are no longer around.

Jim Hargrave

Bill McCarthy · Post by **Bill McCarthy** » Sun Feb 05, 2012 5:21 pm

So there we have it - the WW2 Spitfire (aircraft that is) is paying homage to the WW1 destroyer HMS Spitfire ?

Roger Camp · Post by **Roger Camp** » Tue Feb 07, 2012 7:48 am

I think Carolyn had more than a point. I have seen the Two seater spit on numerous occasions and what she and others have achieved is more than to be respected. Imagine you had a real spit in the hanger and some noddle came along and parked a "copy / replica" on the pan, i dont think you would by too chuffed and if they called it a spitfire well i think it goes without saying doesnt it. A copy will never do what it says on the tin.

Chris Martyr · Post by **Chris Martyr** » Thu Feb 09, 2012 3:14 pm

I don't think that Carolyn Grace had a problem with the aussie kit-spit per-se. It looks quite a nice, fun little aeroplane, except for that rather off-the-clock price tag.
Even using the name Spitfire isn't exactly a heinous crime either, if it had been for example, the Smith Spitfire or the Jones Spitfire. After all, we've had the John Isaacs version and the Marcel Jurca version. But I think the bit that grabbed our gal by the throat , and there is a definite point here , is that the makers have managed to blag the Supermarine tag as well.
That doesn't do the makers any favours at all in my opinion. To draw parallels with Jim re; tribute bands - yes they do have a place , but if a Beatles tribute band actually changed their names to John,Paul,George and Ringo then that would prompt a few sniggers wouldn't it ?

Carolyn did actually acknowledge the merits of the Oxford Project in her letter, and poor old Brian didn't have much choice about referring to the aeroplane as the Supermarine Spitfire in his article, after all that is its name. Ok, his cup may have runneth over with a little journalistic exuberance in a few places , but hey-ho.
Given his location ,it may have been after a couple of pints of Shepherd Neame Spitfire . [ouch-sorry]

Steve Brown · Post by **Steve Brown** » Thu Feb 09, 2012 10:52 pm

But since the owners of the name Supermarine appear to have sanctioned the use of it for the Mk26, why shouldn't the owner use it?

I don't know whether there is any royalty or consideration for that use or what is the motivation for the sanctioning of what I agree is an evocative and legendary name.

Chris Martyr · Post by **Chris Martyr** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 2:55 pm

I do see Steve's point , and I'm not questioning for a single second that the acquisition of the Supermarine title was anything other than lawful.
I just can't quite see why they would want to do it though. After all , it is still just a kitplane , albeit an extremely high quality one, but a kitplane nonetheless .
Bit like a kitcar manufacturer of VW floorpan based 'exoticars' calling himself Maranello Concessionaires really.
Maybe they do pay royalties for the name on each kit sold , an explanation for the rather high price tag perhaps.
Anyway, I've got this wizard idea to help a receding, grey-haired, middle aged old git pull more birds.
Gonna change my name to Brad Pitt

Tom Sheppard · Post by **Tom Sheppard** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 6:54 pm

Bit like a kitcar manufacturer of VW floorpan based 'exoticars' calling himself Maranello Concessionaires really.
No, of course not! It calls itself Bentley Motors and Automobiles Bugatti.
As for the Supermarine Spitfire, am I the only one here that would rather fly the kitplane of the same name rather than the weapon of war designed to kill other pilots?

macconnacher · Post by **macconnacher** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 9:17 pm

I suspect that the name Supermarine has been available for years since it was abandoned as a brand name at the time of BAC and had ceased to be an independent company as far back as 1928 when it became part of Vickers-Armstrong.

I think you are more likely to to incur legal attention if they had called it the BAe Spitfire as some would call the original. Ugh!!!!

jangiolini · Post by **jangiolini** » Sun Feb 12, 2012 9:29 am

I think she is being selfish trying to keep the Spitfire as a rich mans/womans toy, mind you I cant afford a Mk26 either! The fact that throughout its development it had many changes to airframe, its tail, its wingtips its engine etc. so therefore the latest incarnation is a further development! I don't see any problem with that but if there was then surely her two seat aeroplane is no longer a Spitfire being such a major deviation from original!

mikehallam · Post by **mikehallam** » Sun Feb 12, 2012 11:41 am

That's a rash, brash statement of envy. The 'Spitfire' name is accepted as referring to the aeroplane (which with the Hurricane) was our last ditch defence means in the 1940's.

Whilst I don't expect youth or even middle aged pilots to fully appreciate the effects of the insulting tone used by some posters, please remember it's not a brand name to be sold or bartered as anything other than a tribute to the original.

The name 'Spitfire' in one word encapsulates memory of a massive sacrifice, so we can live freely.

mike hallam

Chris Martyr · Post by **Chris Martyr** » Sun Feb 12, 2012 1:13 pm

She's being selfish , trying to keep the Spitfire as a rich mans/womans toy................Oh Dear...Don't think our old chum thought that one through too well did he !
The marketing, operation and maintenance of such an aircraft requires a massive input of commitment and dedication , not to mention the financial input of contributors and sponsors . Obviously , Carolyn Grace does not do all this single handedly, as it would not be possible, but with a hard working ,committed group of supporters , who make it possible for that beautiful aircraft to appear at airshows, open air concerts and the other multitude of activities that it does . The rather vacuous implication that it is some rich bird up there showing off in her exclusive plaything almost defies comment.
To be widowed as a young mum , and to then make the bold decision to retain the aircraft that her husband had restored, and then to go on to be one of our country's top Spitfire protagonists makes her a very gutsy, courageous lady indeed.
Anyone who has ever seen frail,elderly WW2 veterans gazing emotionally skyward at this amazing duo at events will realise that they are a combination that especially we as aviators, should be proud of .

Oh and another thing,,stop insulting R.J. Mitchell . The simplified,scaled down , lookalike , Aussie kit version is most definitely not the 'next stage of development'.

Bill McCarthy · Post by **Bill McCarthy** » Sun Feb 12, 2012 5:09 pm

Sometimes I think we tend to get too gushing regarding the Spitfire. For every WW2 pilot who flew them, if you thin out the "you just strap it on and fly it" interviewees, you will find just as many who thought it was a cold smelly beast, a handfull to fly and glad to be away from it. Their voices are not heard lest they tarnish the history. That's not meant to be an insult to it, just an observation in the cold light of day.
Indeed, the Hurricane made a far greater contribution (as has been mentioned many times before) together with the Mustangs' protection of our, and allied bombers.