Bring Out Your Spitfires

I like Spitfires, full sized or models. I love the elliptical wing and elegant shape. I've built three C/L versions, here's pics. of two of them. First one a Mk.9 built from a plan, 36" span, OS.15, the other a Mk.14 also 36" span Fox.19, put together from a short kit of the old Aeroflyte design. Both fly very well indeed, not scale models, but, they both look great in the air.
Anyone else got any Spitfire models to show?

[photo not recovered: 29215.jpg]


[photo not recovered: 29216.jpg]

Attachment #1, (jpg file)
Attachment #2, (jpg file)

Of course, there is nothing like a classic Spitfire, so long as the wing is elliptical and the U/C angled right the details are less important. For Aeroflyte Spitfires you needed to be at the Vet's gathering at Muswellbrook last month - about a dozen there, the same model for next year so you have no excuse!(http://www.controlline.org.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=3507)
Attached is my version of Windy's seafire, ST60 power.

[photo not recovered: 29217.jpg]

Attachment #1, (jpg file)

That looks great David, my Spit 14 was built from the kits produced for the Vets weekend. I haven't figured out how to post a larger image and keep it under 50K yet!!
John

[photo not recovered: 29218.jpg]

Attachment #1, (jpg file)

Wish I had a picture, Pat Johnston is building a new spitfire this year. REports are to the affect that he was worried about my bf 109 stunter implementing a blitzkreig attack on the innocent judging staff so he built his spit to protect them,,, honestly, I wouldnt do such a thing,,
Nice spitfires guys,, wish I had a pict of Pats to post

John,

Try compressing to ~800 pixels wide using ~72 pixels/inch. I use a limited edition of Photoshop but any compression program should do it. Oh, BTW, start be making a copy of your pic to work on in order to save the original.

Good luck.

George

Winfred built another:

See Ya

Peabody

www.gscb.us / www.richpeabody.com

[photo not recovered: 29222.jpg]

Attachment #1, (jpg file)

Here are two we built from plans by Ron Burns.
Flys great! Will do the pattern in the right hands.
Norvel .061 for power.

Paul Taylor

~I wish I knew everything you have forgotten about C/L.

Check out my Blog@
http://rootbeard.rcuniverse.com
A link to a slide show of a fun day: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-_sR0ZydSQ

[photo not recovered: 29224.jpg]

Attachment #1, (jpg file)

[photo not recovered: 29225.jpg]


[photo not recovered: 29226.jpg]


So long as the wing is Eliptical ? The Tips are ,anyway.
63 span, 10 1/2 chord.70 Oz. (ouch) G-51 ,then Irvine 40
R.E. exhausting through the exhausts. Mk. VIII,from an
Aeroflyte Mustang,converted to a Hurricane (that looks like
a Yak ) scaled up and turned into a Spitfire for R / C but
flown Control Line .

Flys V well and viceless to 18 Kt. winds . Pilot needs
proton energy pills if its blowing 25 Kts, as well as
digging the heels in .

Attachment #1, (jpg file)
Attachment #2, (jpg file)

[photo not recovered: 29227.jpg]


[photo not recovered: 29228.jpg]

This is a 63 in. span Mk. XII .
Grey Nurse -shark mouth scribbled on if you look close;
even got the beady eyes.

Refitted a new rear Fuselage,and painted it silver.

Next ! ? * one 'll be this scaled to 57 in for the ST . 46.


Worth fitting the elevator 'ears' - , as control loads are very low
and still responds - manouvres with the lines bowed, or a bit slack.

Attachment #1, (jpg file)
Attachment #2, (jpg file)

here's a Hi Johnson Spitfire I built.

Aside from some minor hanger rash, it's engine has never been run and it still has never been flown.

[photo not recovered: HiJohnsonSpitfire.jpg]

Nice Walter! Very nice!

Here's another one built (amateurishly) from a half-kit of the Aeroflyte MkXIV - powered by a PAW 15. Only finished it last week so it hasn't flown yet.

[photo not recovered: 29229.jpg]


[photo not recovered: 29230.jpg]

Attachment #1, (jpg file)
Attachment #2, (jpg file)

This is fantastic, they all look so great! Guess there's a few others out there that are fond of Spitfires, The Seafire looks really good too. Keep 'em coming guys.
John

I'm not quite up to the finishing stage yet!
This is one of Dave Browns laser cut kits as used for the veterans gathering this and also for next year.
He's got an excellent range of offerings, not all C/L though.
Cheers John

[photo not recovered: 29231.jpg]

Attachment #1, (jpg file)

Yeah, that's how my Spit.14 started life, one of those short kits for the Vets. weekend. I moved the U/C to the wing and added some scale detail, cannon, radiators, carb. scoop etc. Canopy and cowl from soft drink bottles, wooden plugs and a heat gun.I did the decals on my PC. Start glueing it together John.
Getting the picture posting to work now anyway.

John




[photo not recovered: 29249.jpg]

Attachment #1, (jpg file)

I'm just about to start one, also based on Dave Brown's short kit of the Aeroflyte spitfire. Mine will be slightly over-powered with a PAW 19.

Steve111 and I used to fly PAW diesel powered Aeroflyte Spitfires when we were at school together - his with the 249DS and mine with the 19DS. The Dave Brown kit is a vast improvement on the "dumbed down" Aeroflyte kits we built in the '80s, which didn't even have flaps.

Mines vastly overpowered with a Fox.19, goes like a rocket, but Stunts OK.
John



[photo not recovered: 29250.jpg]

Attachment #1, (jpg file)

here is mine, from windy and adamuso plans powered by a rojett 61
chufo-spain

[photo not recovered: 29235.jpg]

Attachment #1, (jpg file)

>Mines vastly overpowered with a Fox.19, goes like a rocket,
>but Stunts OK.

Hi John,

Yeah - the PAW 19 may be an overkill to my reflexes as they are now - as a 14 year old it seemed ok. I'm not sure what kind of lap times we used to get with the Spitfires, but I bet it was fast.

The 19DS was actually fine in the much larger Aeroflyte ME109 (for which I also have plans, courtesy of Colin Maybury on the Sunshine Coast).

cheers,
Colin

John,

Out of interest, where is the CG in your MkXIV? Mine is fairly well forward - a bit under an inch from the leading edge. (Probably a combination of the PAW not being the world's lightest engine, and me trying to build the rest of the thing fairly light - although 21oz is still not exactly anorexic...) I can't remember where it was on my flapless version of 25 years ago, and am curious as to what to expect.

Cheers
Steve

>Out of interest, where is the CG in your MkXIV? Mine is
>fairly well forward - a bit under an inch from the leading
>edge. (Probably a combination of the PAW not being the
>world's lightest engine, and me trying to build the rest of
>the thing fairly light - although 21oz is still not exactly
>anorexic...) I can't remember where it was on my flapless
>version of 25 years ago, and am curious as to what to expect.

Hi Steve,

From memory the CG on our Spitfires was in about the same place - 1 inch or so behind the leading edge.

cheers,
Col

The C of G on my model is 1.25" behind the L/E, AUW is 20 oz. with the Fox.19 ( no muffler ). As mentioned, my cowling is heat formed light PET, there's no balsa ahead of the firewall and bearers shortened back to the engine to save some weight up front. The top block on the fuz. is made from laminated 1/4" strips, which also saved a bit more weight.
I may make some alum. mount pads and try my OS.15FP, should move the C.G. back even further with the lighter engine, although the glide is nice and flat it still seemed a touch nose heavy in some parts of the pattern.
John

The big blue thing, which is basically one of them scaled up,
flys fine with the C.G. at the spar . Though it might pay to be
a bit cautious .

Here's mine.

Another of Brownie's kits....such beautiful wood.

Only had 1 flight.....a touch nose heavy with a Max 15. Could also use quicker controls.

[photo not recovered: 29248.jpg]

Attachment #1, (jpg file)

Cool Greg, PRU version? Sure seems to be plenty of these short kits around, are they still available I wonder, think I want another one.
John

Any other old Aeroflyte designs around?

I have the plans for the ME109 for .19-.35 (my first > .049 plane), and also have fond memories of the Aurora, which I flew with an OS MAX-S .35 that my late grandfather gave me.

cheers,
Colin

John,

PRU by default, the spray can I selected didn't come out the royal blue I expected. Was going to be the N17 World Speed Record holder.

Still go to source roundels.

You should be able to get another short kit either from Brownie direct or from Bill Swan who also has hardware kit to suit.

Let me know if you need any of the contact details.

Thanks Greg, I bought this kit from Bill Swan, I'll phone him tonight, also got a pal in the U.K. who's after a kit/plan. This could become a growth industry for Lithgow!
You can make your own decals on your PC, just need white decal paper and 20 minutes key board time. Some threads about it on RCU or email me.
John

[photo not recovered: 29265.jpg]


I don’t understand why people continue to build stunt ships with low mounted wings without dihedral which would be necessary to properly locate the leadout exit aligned with the vertical CG. Stunt ships with low mounted wings without dihedral are unlikely to fare better than my first semi-scale airplane, A Spitfire.

The following is copied from my 37,000 word, 61 photograph, autobiography published in the Oct 2007 and Jan 2008 Control Line World.


Al Rabe, Control Line Stunt Flyer


[photo not recovered: 29264.jpg]


“This Spitfire looked pretty good for a first attempt at a semi-scale stunt ship. Unfortunately, it didn’t fly well due to a lack of dihedral. The silver finish was temporary and would have been replaced with an appropriate British scheme had the airplane flown well enough to justify the effort. It was powered by a McCoy 40.”

Dihedral

When the second year of probation started, things were still a bit tight, but I was able to begin to model a bit more. I bought a Jetco Ruffy kit designed by Lew McFarland. It was on sale at a give-away price. I started to build it, but lost interest in the Ruffy. Instead, I began to convert the partially built wing into a semi-scale Spitfire wing by adding elliptically tapering tips to the constant chord section. While I was at it, the fuselage was changed to a semi-scale bubble canopied Spitfire and new tail surfaces were built. The project was capped off with a set of commercial shock gears of machined aluminum which didn’t work very well. The wing was installed on the fuselage bottom without dihedral. It was painted solid silver. Representative paint schemes were still far in the future. All in all, it looked fairly good.

While the Spitfire looked like it might be a stunt ship, in flight it was anything but. It flew upright banked out with good line tension. Inverted, it flew banked in with virtually no tension. “Tweaking” the flaps helped some, but the Spitfire was never going to be a competent stunt ship. The problem was obvious. Upright or inverted, the leadouts, exiting from the inboard wing tip were aligning with the thrust line of the fuselage, a couple of inches above the center of the wing. This was causing it to fly banked out upright and banked in inverted. If the airplane had been built with dihedral, the leadouts could have been made to align with the vertical center of gravity. With a proper leadout location, it would have flown wings level. This would certainly have made it a better flying airplane, maybe even halfway decent. This was my first lesson in stunt ship design.

Al

Attachment #1, (jpg file)
Attachment #2, (jpg file)

You guys obviously love your Spits! Lots of lovely looking airplanes.

Anachronis, you really love the long wings, don't you. The really great news about high aspect ratios is they can carry weight if such problem ever raises it head. Very nice looking.

Windy's ... what can you ever say. Beautiful!

Enjoy guys.

Ted

Al,

while your comment about leadout positions may be valid, I am primarily a race pilot and I built and fly the Spit for sport. I would have about as much chance of doing the full f2b schedule as flapping my arms and flying myself.

If I were to go over to the dark side I certainly wouldn't be messing with a 36" span model from the 60's powered by a 15 motor of similar vintage.

Like Ted says I love Spits, and the model as set up, still needs a bit of work before it meets my admittedly low aerobatics flying standards.

Greggles,

Exactly. The whole purpose of the Aeroflyte Spitfire rebuilds that have been posted here is pure nostalgia. Reliving a well spent youth, and finding a good home for our old .15s and .19s.

Mind you, one of the reasons the Aeroflyte Spitfire design doesn't quite look right is the lack of dihederal. I wonder how one would fly if you modified it.

cheers,
Colin

Better.

Al

>
>Better.
>
>Al


Ron B.
F4Fguy

Amen!

Ron B.

A friend of mine and his model Spitfire:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mo1fhLxtYI0

Iskandar

Thats quite a model, where can I buy a kit and will it have dihedral?

Ho Hum ; Re: 31 .

The flat plank wing blue one . Flew it both ways .

Built it with the ballcrank in the top of the wing,
two sets of leadout cut outs. Had balloon wheels.


FLAT WING . Nice and steady and orderly . !
Mushed a bit on inside squares . Turned better
OUTSIDE squares .
Presumed due to WHEEL DRAG . Down there .
Could feel the thump as the tailplane went through the wheel wake
(3 1/4 Dia. )

SO , cut the lower spars , fitted diheadral brace , and
rethreaded leadouts .

Turns Square insides and outside SQUARE CORNERS -
EVENLY ., due to the Cr. of Drag , and Cr. of LIFT
being raised.

Diheadral was = to the thickness of wing.

General feel was to change it to a 'hot ship ', from a
pedestrian old dray .

Youll note the new wings FLAT .
A pedestrian old dray , that flys itself through
the pattern effoftlessly , and flys fine on slack lines,
and flys itself out tight if youve ballsed it up, feels
very "50s vintage controll liner " ,At its best.

Leves the problem of the U/C ( chassis / Wheels )
Probly drop of or steamline wheels needed .

Flew superbly with Diheadral , But more attention needed
as its less 'self steering '.

Would cope with turbulent conditions better with the diheadral
with a 'hot ' (instantaeneous reactions )pilot for infintismal
corrections to maintain true flightpath due to less linear
stability .

My 10 cents worth anyway .

Blah , blah, blah .

Very informative Anachronis, next Spit I build will have a little dihedral. I'm about to start on a Hearns Hobbies Wirraway, it has dihedral shown on the plan. BTW your NZ 10 cents worth is only worth 8 cents on this side of the ditch.
John

Looks as though that's all the Spitfire models on the planet. Thanks for participating, I was hoping to see a few more examples, C/L Spitfire builders seem to be a vanishing breed.
John

>Looks as though that's all the Spitfire models on the planet.
>Thanks for participating, I was hoping to see a few more
>examples, C/L Spitfire builders seem to be a vanishing breed.
>John


O.M.G. please don't say that, I will be starting the Spitfire kit prototype right after the PT-19 kits are done.

[photo not recovered: plans1_6_11_08a.jpg]

Walter,

Talke to Pat Johnston. He's just about done with his version of a Spitfire. It has dihedral and is more "scalish" than many seen.

>Looks as though that's all the Spitfire models on the planet.
>Thanks for participating, I was hoping to see a few more
>examples, C/L Spitfire builders seem to be a vanishing breed.

Not sure about that.

I suspect the Dave Brown short kit will bring a fair few more .15/.19 ones out of the woodwork here in Oz.

cheers,
Colin

Al

No problem with line tension either upright or inverted on my low-wing, dihedral-free model. Where it can get hairy is in the second half of an inside loop - which is not what you need on a model with fairly high wing loading and generous turn radius! Oddly enough line tension remains fairly constant in outside looping manoeuvres. Any thought on the solution, anyone?

>Al
>
>No problem with line tension either upright or inverted on my
>low-wing, dihedral-free model. Where it can get hairy is in
>the second half of an inside loop - which is not what you need
>on a model with fairly high wing loading and generous turn
>radius! Oddly enough line tension remains fairly constant in
>outside looping manoeuvres. Any thought on the solution,
>anyone?


Ron B.
F4Fguy

You need dihedral! ( Or a more highly located tip guide to get it in line with the CG.)

It's rolling to outboard in outsides, and rolling inboard on insides.

Ron B.

hi all
i have just finished and flown my first ever model with dihedral and it flies so much better than any model i have ever built (in 42 years of modelling) .I couldn't say if it is to do with the design or a jig built frame ,but it does track completely differently .
paul

No photos yet, but I started on a Sterling version of a Spit last month. The wing will be a tad thicker, so I am having some laser cut ribs done. I am changing the wing to symetrical planform. Will post photos when done. The paint scheme will be from the Eagle Squadron of 1940's

Of course it will no longer be Classic legal, but that is not what I am building it for. I just want one that is light and flys good.
Who wouldn't want a Spit.?

This one was at Brodak's this year. It's tongue-muffler equipped Greenhead had a nice mellow roar. It seemed like it coasted two laps after the engine shut down.

[photo not recovered: 29433.jpg]

Attachment #1, (jpg file)

Now that looks nice, keep 'em coming guys, wonder if that's from a kit or plan? Anymore info Elwyn?
John

I believe it's a Sterling Spitfire. I don't know if any of the wood came from the kit.

[photo not recovered: 29444.jpg]

Attachment #1, (jpg file)

The Sterling Spitfire kit is the one Walter Umland ( builditright ) is planning to release soon.
John

Ron B.
F4Fguy

Here's the prototype of the one I designed for our beginner's class(8-10yr olds) in our "Young Aviator's Academy".

It's 8 years old and still going strong. Over several years, the kids built close to 100 of them.

[photo not recovered: 29505.jpg]


[photo not recovered: 29506.jpg]


[photo not recovered: 29507.jpg]


[photo not recovered: 29508.jpg]

Ron B.

Attachment #1, (jpg file)
Attachment #2, (jpg file)
Attachment #3, (jpg file)
Attachment #4, (jpg file)

[photo not recovered: 29538.jpg]


[photo not recovered: 29539.jpg]

Attachment #1, (jpg file)
Attachment #2, (jpg file)