Classic Spitfire Stunter

What semi-scale Spitfire is the best flying design in the Classic era? Who has the plans?

Has there ever been a close-to-scale Spitfire flown in Stunt? All the examples I've seen look way off - Spitfire caricatures, if anything. In contrast, I've seen several P-51 stunters that "look right" (in particular, Al Rabe's, but some others, too, even Todd Lee's "Magnum Opus").

Part of the problem is that the Spitfire had a very thin wing, and a smallish tail. Flaps also look wrong (the full-size plane had split flaps that extended under the wing only - the top surface of the wing did not move).

Sterling made a good one if you build it light. I think Jack Sheets(hope I speled it wirght) made a winner. HOWEVER, I would like to know too. I'm going to make a Spit next Fall.

Scott(need to know)Riese

>Sterling made a good one if you build it light. I think Jack
>Sheets(hope I speled it wirght) made a winner. HOWEVER, I
>would like to know too. I'm going to make a Spit next Fall.
>
>Scott(need to know)Riese

I have Sterling Spitfire Stunter that I have been thinking about building soon. It seems to be built closely to the Ringmaster Imperial size and moments. It also looks like it will build a little on the heavy side.

The Sterling Spit' is in fact an excellent performer when you toss the horrid kit wood and build from scratch. Flew one in '64 and could that thing ever turn a corner!!!

I recall that someone had a Spitfire at one of the Lake Charles Nats that was very similar in style to Al Rabe's Mustang. It was very scale like. It is quite possible plans were never published, and then the date would need to be verified (Designed before).

Big help I am. Anybody remember this one?

Isky: Your statement re the Spit tail size is not accurate.

Once you get into the Griffon powered Marks, the vertical stab/rudder size increased a lot, because of torque concerns. Going through all of the Spitfires/Spitefuls, etc, there are about a half dozen stab/rudder designs and outlines, increasing over time.

There is a picture of my profile Spitfire in the (I think) May 1997 Model Aviation.

It swims with the fishes now.

It was a Navy version, with the two tone gray paint job. Currell

>What semi-scale Spitfire is the best flying design in the
>Classic era? Who has the plans?

Now back to the original question regarding the best flying design in the Classic era. In an earlier post, I listed a number of plans that were published in the model magazines, but many of these were published well after the December 1969 Classic cutoff date. Geoff added some really good information regarding the various designs that were published in the Aeromodeller magazine.

I will give my impression/opinion on the Classic designs (before 1970) that have been mentioned here that might prove to be the better flyers. These comments are based only on my assessment of the designs that have been published and my experience of what normally makes one model fly/perform better than another. I have not seen any of these so I do not have any first hand experience. I am assuming that the ability to fly a decent precision aerobatic pattern is desired in addition to having a model that is a fair representation of the Spitfire.

The Geoff Pentland Spitfire in Aeromodeller, Dec 60 has a 53.5 inch span, has 540 sq in. Really nice thick airfoi and adequate looking flaps with no sweep. Narrow tread LG but the gear is mounted in the wing. This is after the Mk VIII Spitfire put into a "typical" stunt format. The wings definitely look oversized, the eliptical wing plan form is somewhat compromised as almost half the span is straight with no LE sweep. It should be an "adequte" performer if the wing loading is kept within reason. Plans may be available from England.

The Mackey Spitfire from American Modeler, Feb 60, has about a 58 inch span, with maybe up to 600 sq in. Narrow tread, but wing mounted LG. Plans show a Fox 35. Has a rather long tail moment. Comparitively thin airfoil. Fairly small flaps with no sweep, not much more than half span. By the account that Charles wrote, quoting others, this was a good flying model. (I think it is safe to say that any Mackey design is a good stunt ship.) This is a very attractive ship, though the fuselage is really slender. It still gives a good representation of an early Mark Spitfire. Tom Dixon has listed plans for this.

The Baker Spitfire from MAN Aug 55 has about a 44 inch span. Nice shaped wing, huge horizontal tail. Fairly thin airfoil. Nearly full span flaps with a highly swept forward hinge line. Narrow tread, the LG comes out of the bottom of the wing outside of the fuselage, but the gear is tied to a fuselage bulkhead. Side mounted engine. The plans show a split horn which I think needs to be avoided. The degree of sweep with a single horn would require a "lucky box" in the flaps for the horn. This is an attractive model, but will be lacking in size and the plans look like the airplane would build heavy. There are probably better choices if stunt performance is desired.

The Sheeks Spitfire in FM, Sep 68, makes into a nice looking model. This is an I-Beam stunt ship with eliptical wings and tail with a slenderized fuselage to give the appearance of a Spitfire. Wing
mounted gear Straight hinge line on the less than half-span flaps. 49 in span. The I-Beam on an eliptical planform looks really neat. With the proper weight, this would be a decent performing airplane.

The Sterling kit is Classic legal. Not a bad looking airplane, but I have an idea the kit or a model built from the kit plans would build heavy. There are probably better choices for a good flying semi-scale Spitfire.

Of these Classic designs, I would opt for either the Mackey or the Sheeks version. For purposes of nostagia, I would lean to the Mackey design. It would be neat to fly it here in the LA area in the annual Mackey Open. However, I have to admit the I-Beam symmetrical wing that Jack did is intriguing.

(There is another model I should have listed in my original post, though it is not Classic legal. Jack Sheeks published his Seafang in Flying Models, April 1979. 58 inch wing, wing mounted gear. The Seafang was the Royal Navy version of the Spitefull which was a design excursion from the Spitfire. These aircraft had straight tapered wings on a fuselage similar to the late model Spitfires with a bubble canopy. They still had the eliptical tail surfaces. A very nice looking airplane. Jack's plans show a foam wing. Should fly well. Too bad it is not Classic legal.)

If it is not important to build a Classic legal model, I would opt for the Freeman Spitfire already described. It is definitely the better looking of those published and probably as good of a flyer of any listed. It also has the planform of the late model Spitfires rather than the full eliptical shape of the earlier versions.

Ron B.
F4Fguy

It's certainly not a classic,nor even a serious stunt machine,but knowing your interest in 1/2 As and kids,I thought would like this one.It's the"Cal-Poly Academy Spitfire",used in our "Young Aviator's Academy"at Cal-Poly for the past four years.Thirty-two kids from 10 to 14 spend a week (six days)building and flying model airplanes.This is only one that has been used in this program.

Now that is totally cute! Where do we order our plans?....or can we sign up for next years build!?

Ron B.
F4Fguy

Glenn:EMail me a snail address and I'll send you a copy.

>There is another design called the Stuntfire in Model
>Aviation, August 1983 by Scot Bair that he describes as
>suggestive of a late-model Spitfire. This is another Rabe
>inspired design that looks very attractive. Stringers on
>the rear fuselage. It should build fairly light. For a ST
>60 on 670 sq in and 51 oz. This is a really nice looking
>airplane.

Keith:

Scott built his own engines, they had more torque than a ST60 and weighed less. He also normally flew using a 15 or 16 inch prop. His engines also had to be extremely smooth because per the plans there is only a small 1/64" piece of plywood on the firewall everything else is balsa. The plane took off like a rat racer, had almost constant speed, and flew like on rails. The 51 oz. was after quite a bit of use, the original weight was in the high 40's.

>Perhaps the most attractive of all of the semi-scale
>Spitfires that have been published was that of Mark Freeman
>in American Aircraft Modeler, August 1973. This was done
>with a significant amount of influence by Al Rabe regarding
>construction, airfoils, dihedral, swept forward flaps, near
>scale profile fuselage. Built light and with the right
>power plant, this should be a capable performer.
>
>There are others that do not have the great appearance of
>the Rabe influenced design by Freeman.

It is pretty hard to beat the appearance of the Freeman Spitfire if you are looking for something that is close to scale in aooearance. I recall Al Rabe giving this design high marks in a previous post for performance potential as well. It's a beauty. Because it was published in 73, unfortunately it doesn't qualify as classic.

> Why isn't the Hi Johnson Spitfire listed? I saw Dennis fly
>his, and
> from my memorey, it flew rather well. I know it isn't one
>of the easist planes to build but it is classic leagal.
>
>Walter

Hi Walt,

I am not familiar with a Hi Johnson Spitfire that was published in any of the magazines. And I am not familiar with any Spitfire kit that Hi Johnson designed. I do not have any listing that shows any Hi Johnson Spitfire. Is there a picture of one somewhere? If there are plans available for one, I would be interested in getting hold of a copy for my files.

I will check with Tony at the Johnson Memorial at Sepulveda next weekend, 11-12 Oct.

Hey Keith, It was never published. I saw it at the 60 or 61 Nats.
I believe Tony has plans.

>I had noticed the Hi Johnson Spitfire on Barry's site, and
>that was the first I knew of it. It's a bit short in the
>rear, no flaps, large horizontal tail. Mackey's looks like a
>good choice for a Brodak .40 or the "Merco" Rustler .40. I
>can't envision a Spitfire with all the ribs of an I-Beamer
>(Sheeks) looking real great. How about a Palmer/Veco
>Hurricane? Steve
>
>Photo of Hi Johnson "Spit" from Barry's website

I built this one so here's a color shot
and I can give building photo's if any one wants them

>What are the dementions of the HI Johnson Spitz?
>
>scott(want to make one)Riese

Scott I just measured the plans and the wing is 59 1/4
now measuring the inboard wing
LE to TE at the root is 13 1/4"
LE to TE at the last rib is 6 3/8"
and there is still 3 1/2 inches more for each of the built up tips
it shows un equal panels by 3/4" but I did the one shown on Barry's site (and my site)with equal panels
now 60" total
The plans show built up tail surfaces but the fellow I did this for wanted it solid and not to be airfoiled, so I ended up with much nose counter balancing to do

ok here's a few pictures

Walter, and all,

This is likely to be a relatively poor flying airplane. The construction photos illustrate very nice construction. The problem is with the design of the airplane. Today we have a fuller understanding of the aerodynamics which make stunt ships fly well. It is now well understood that to have generally equal line tension as the airplane maneuvers in inside and outside maneuvers it is necessary to have the leadouts exit the wing near the vertical center of gravity. If you hang this Spitfire by its leadouts you will find the leadouts WILL line up with the center of gravity, both horizontal and vertical. The airplane will hang with the outboard wing tip lower than the inboard if you visualize the airplane being horizontal instead of hanging vertical. It will fly the same way, banked out through all maneuvers which will give extra line tension in inside maneuvers and reduced line tension in outside maneuvers. Additionally, the airplane will fly in a relatively strained attitude at all times and will tend to jerk as any control is applied.

It is not enough to build well. It is also necessary to observe well understood elements of aerodynamics as applicable to control line stunt ships. My first original design was a Spitfire which had a low mounted wing without dihedral. I fought that airplane's trim to make it fly well until I finally understood why it was never going to fly well. I then wrote about the experience for other modelers and pointed out the need for dihedral in stunt ships with low mounted wings.

It may be pretty and well built, but it is an incompetent design by todays standards. Before building an old time or classic design, it is necessary to evaluate the designs aerodynamics in the light of todays better understanding and avoid airplane designs with clear disregard for elementary stunt aerodynamics. There are many old time designs of typical and quite ordinary configurations which will fly well. Low wing airplanes without dihedral should be avoided. Knowingly building a tail heavy airplane isn't going to help any either.

Could a very careful trimming neutralize most of its inherent disadvantages? Such as, tweaking the flaps, fore/aft leadout location, amount of rudder offset, etc.

thanks
maybe a kit of this would be nice watcha think?