Read the forum code of contact
By: - 21st October 2004 at 13:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Discuss at length with your inspector, all may have an effect on the airframe and in some cases aerodynamics. All should be drawn properly and submitted properly for consideration.
Melvyn
By: - 21st October 2004 at 13:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think it is fairly straightforward. You tell the PFA Engineering Dept what you would like to do, supported by relevant drawings and they will approve, turn down or ask for tit to be modified.
You have to show that any mod will not have a detrimental effect on the structural integrity or flying characteristics.
I don't know how many other Isaacs Spits have been built. You may find some similar mods have already been done. In which case the approval process is easier.
When my friend built his Europa, he incorporated several mods - some existing ones which had already been approved elsewhere and a couple of new ones, including access to the rear of the panel by a hatch in the firewall (for which he had to demonstrate that the fireproof structure was maintained). He went to the PFA Rally to see what ideas he could get from other people's aircraft.
I know someone else building a Europa who is quite tall and has managed to get a mod agreed which puts a fillet into the fuselage to raise the cockpit canopy.
Speak to your PFA inspector, and sound him out first. He'll be able to help you prepare the paperwork.
If you had the same thing with the CAA it would be a nightmare. We had several ex-Swedish Bulldogs imported in to North Weald before they were put on the G-Register (they're the Ultimate High ones now). They had tiny little brackets on the outside of the fuselage where the Swedes attached their skis. 'Unauthorised mod' said the CAA. It would have cost a fortune to get them approved, so off came the brackets! Shame really.
YR
By: - 21st October 2004 at 13:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There's only been two Isaacs Spits built, and one flyer (the prototype) that looks much the same today as it did when it first flew almost 30 years ago...!!
The photos are:
The Isaacs Spit
60% scale Spitfire in Canada (with the mods I wanted to fit)
Spitfire XVIII SM845 - how I wanted the Isaacs to look (more or less)
By: - 21st October 2004 at 13:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Daz,
Whatever you do to it, it will still not be a Spitfire.
It will be an Isaacs Spit designed by a great bloke and a genuinely interesting aeroplane in its own right.
The replica with the mods looks like a Chopper bike with a bit of cardboard in the wheel to make it sound like an engine - you know, a bit silly.
It is not, nor will it ever be, a convincing Spitfire so why not live with the fact that you are not going to buy SM845 in the near future and make a really nice ISAACS Spitfire, not a watered-down copy of a Spitfire that looks a little silly.
(just my opinion).
By: - 21st October 2004 at 13:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
.... the PFA Engineering Dept ...... or ask for tit to be modified.
The PFA becoming involved in cosmetic surgery. Whatever next?
Moggy
By: - 21st October 2004 at 15:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Daz,Whatever you do to it, it will still not be a Spitfire.
It will be an Isaacs Spit designed by a great bloke and a genuinely interesting aeroplane in its own right.
Yes I know that.
So why not add my own touches to the aircraft?? If this is as close as I'm ever going to get to owning a Spitfire, why not spruce it up a bit? You must admit that undercarriage looks a bit "dangly" - like an R/C model with fixed gear....(and I know, I built several like that!)
It was a simple question, not a cause for debate. :rolleyes:
By: - 21st October 2004 at 21:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It was a simple question, not a cause for debate. :rolleyes:
I appreciate that but I wouldn't want to be seen standing near that second one. It looks really bad.
MH
By: - 21st October 2004 at 21:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Beauty is in the eye, apparently....
By: - 21st October 2004 at 21:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Mmmmm, not for me, looks like a camouflaged pram with a propellor.
M
By: - 21st October 2004 at 22:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well, be thankful I'm not a member of the r.weaver school of aviation....!
By: - 25th October 2004 at 13:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sod it
I probably shan't bother with the paperwork hassle. I didn't think a couple of dummy guns would cause much of a headache, but I have been proved wrong!
Straight, from the board, Isaacs Spitfire with a natty paint scheme.... :dev2:
By: - 25th October 2004 at 14:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I probably shan't bother with the paperwork hassle.
Be very clear Daz.
Aircraft ownership and paperwork hassle go together.
Moggy
By: - 25th October 2004 at 15:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I meant the hassle of having extra paperwork for cannons etc!
By: - 26th October 2004 at 05:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
How far are you with the Isaacs Spit planning?
I'm presently doing a load of research for the Pietenpol, and am about to purchase the plans.
I'm going to paint it in pre-war USAAC colours (blue fuselage, yellow wing with red stripe rudder etc).
I also learnt this weekend that I can register it as a Microlight here in NZ due to the wing-loading & power rating being low.
Saves heaps of paper work and beauracracy with building.
I reckon half of the fun with starting a project is getting ideas for it and visualising the finished product.
Chris
TNZ
By: - 26th October 2004 at 08:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not very far! I plan on at least starting the empennage next year. I'm trying to convince people to give me money for Christmas/birthday instead of actual presents!!
As I said above, my colour scheme might well be based on SM845, or possibly a Spitfire 24 - the addition of black and white stripes to the wings and fuselage might make the Spit a bit easier to spot!!
While I would have liked to modify the cowling, exhausts(Ed Johancsik's 60% Spit (above) has about 5% extra power due to the exhaust set-up) and add dummy cannons etc, I don't particularly want to give myself more hassle than is already needed!!
By: - 26th October 2004 at 08:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Good stuff.
Don't be put off by what other people say, you just build it how you want.
It will be after all your aircraft !!
TNZ
By: - 26th October 2004 at 10:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Good stuff.
you just build it how you want.
It will be after all your aircraft !!TNZ
Well, if I did that, then I'd have more headaches than I really need with this Spit!
At the very, very least I might put undercarriage doors on it. Those legs look very gangly, and the wings might get a set of cannons fitted, but if it's too much work then it'll look like this one, just with a nice colour scheme...
Oh well...:rolleyes:
By: - 26th October 2004 at 16:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You'll end up with a nicer (and lighter) aeroplane
By: - 26th October 2004 at 17:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I was actually wondering whether the inclusion/deletion of undercarriage doors would decrease drag or not.
By: - 26th October 2004 at 17:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
More than likely.
Posts: 18,353
By: DazDaMan - 21st October 2004 at 10:28
I was thinking of adding some small mods to the Isaacs Spitfire when I eventually get around to building it - dummy cannons/machine-guns, slightly different cowling and exhaust, windshield, undercarriage doors etc.
Is there any sort of PFA legislation about these kind of things being done?