It would go great with my Irvin jacket and Type B flying helmet and goggles.
Ooh yeah!
All I need is about $200,000 and a space to build it!
I wonder… Do I really need to own a house?
Who wouldn’t!
But yes, you do need a house, FBOs don’t let people live in a closet in the hangar.
Pretty cool, all right. However, the web site says, “Suitable for a first-time pilot”. Since when is a single seat, 260HP taildragger with a controllable pitch prop suitable for a first time pilot??
If you can fly a Robinson R-22, you can fly anything! 
If I were ever to get such an airplane (Oh, wait. It’s a Spit – Aeroplane) I’d definitely get training in a conventionally-geared aircraft before doing anything more than a no-wind, low-speed taxi.
Back in the '80s a company called Thunder Wings made a 5/8-scale Spitfire Mk.IX kit. Being .625-scale, it was a little smaller than the 3/4 scale Mk.XVI in the link. But it used a 350 hp modified Jaguar V-12 engine. (I remember reading an article that said, ‘It looks for all the world like a mini-Merlin.’) The airframe was made of fiberglass, and the airfoil was that of a Bonanza. They also made a P-40 replica and an FW-190 replica.
I was unable to find them with google, so I guess they’re gone.
Well back in the day many of the pilots flying them were brand new pilots with just a few hours solo.
Why are they making it 80% size? Why not full size?
I’ve often wondered that. Nearly all warbird replicas are reduced scale.
One reason I can think of is the lack of suitable engines. A heavier aircraft needs a more powerful engine. Merlins are becoming pretty scarce. (I grew up in San Diego, and I could hear the hydroplane races. Even as a child I cringed at the thought of the damage being done to those beautiful Merlins and Allisons as I listened to the noise which I could hear from my home!)
Another issue is complexity. Warplanes were built to be tough. Building an exact replica would require much more material. IIRC the Spitfire had main spars that were made up of aluminum tubing that was ‘telescoped’ (i.e., tubes within tubes) for strength. Very difficult for a homebuilder to fabricate, I should think. Of course a full-sized replica could be made that lacked the strength of the original, but would it be safe?
Airplanes are compromises. A J-3 Cub is great for landing in a meadow, but not so good in a dogfight. Conversely, an F-14 Tomcat is not a plane I’d like to try to land on a grass strip! Designers have to balance speed vs. payload vs. manufacturing costs vs. market demand vs. well, everything. So it seems that 5/8, 2/3 or 3/4 scales are the ‘ideal’ size for homebuilts. They can fly on lower-powered (and available) engines, can be built in a two-car garage, can be flown by low-time pilots, require less material than a full-sized version, and retain sufficient strength to be fairly safe.
Of course I’d rather have a rivet-for-rivet reproduction of a Spitfire/ Though even the linked replica is beyond my means, it is not beyond the realm of possibility.
You’ll put yer eye out with that!
(Sweet!)
I’ll wear my Mk.VIII goggles.
Wow, that’s fantastic.
I can’t see if it’s based on an existing plane - I presume it has modern controls?
I’m not au fait enough with planes to know what that means. What I really mean is, do they take the engine and instrument panels of, say, a Cessna, and put a new body on it, or do they make/buy everything and put it together from scratch?
Ah. Unlike a ‘body-on-frame’ car, where a shell can be put on a rolling chassis, most aircraft are ‘stressed skin’ designs that may be thought of in car terms as ‘unibody’ or ‘unit construction’. So the entire airframe is built up from aluminum. There is a choice of engines: A 260 hp GM V6, or a Jabiru horizontally-opposed eight. The GM engine offers better reliability and reduced fuel consumption with no loss of performance. Two-, three-, and four-bladed propellors may be used.
Instruments are up to the builder. They can be bought ‘off the shelf’ at a local aircraft supply store (such as Aircraft Spruce). The builder may choose basic instruments, or may choose to go full-out (space permitting). A radio would be a must, and an altitude-reporting (Mode C) transponder is required in many places in the U.S. I don’t think an Emergency Locator Transmitter is required on homebuilt aircraft, but it would be a good idea. Again, all of these may be sourced (new or used) locally.
Much of the airframe is constructed at the factory, consuming about 700 hours of labour. The builder must put in 1,000 to 1,200 hours of additional manhours. Under FAA rules, aircraft in the Experimental category must be at least 51% built by the customer.
Very nice.
When it comes to Spit-like kits, I love the look of the Silence Twister. Plus it’s only about a quarter of the cost of the one you posted… It’s on my “short list” of planes for my first homebuilt, were I to get the time and money.
I was just wondering… would the fact that this version does not have an actual machine gun and ammo storage requirement make the 20% size reduction not only possible but even desireable from a performance and engineering point of view?
Just a thought.
Very pretty! But I still want a ‘Spitfire’.
No.
drool~~~~~