Author Topic: Sterling... Seafire? (Read 2747 times)

Dennis Adamisin · « **on:** August 20, 2007, 07:01:42 PM »

Sterling... Seafire???

OK, Sterling's kit was really for a Spitfire, but the LATE series Griffon- Spit modeled by Sterling makes an easy conversion to Sea Fire. While it hardly lives up to modern semi-scale standards, I always liked the bird, and got a good enough deal on EBAY so... HEY, it will NEVER be mistaken for Joe Adamusko's - but its kinda neat looking anyway!

I chickened out on doing it in camo, instead I copied the Top Flite Sea Fury box pix right down to the Canadian Maple Leafs and just like that it's a SeaFire - eh?

Around 1962-63 or so my father had built one of these (see pix 1), powered by a K&B Greenhead 35. Had a devil of a time with it - the motor was prone to run-aways and usually it flew around 90 mph - or so it seemed. I remember how the wing used to flex..! Recently my dad had revisited the K&B 35 and thinks he has it figured out for stunt, so I duplicated his engine installation too. BTW, the kit plans also suggest this engine - so it is CLASSIC down to the bone.

Some "non-classic" structural mods:
* Angled LE sheeting to follow spars & added shear webs
* Replaced 1/2 x 1/2 x6" motor mounts with 3/8 x 3/8 x 12" mounts
* Made tank removable - changed cowl line to suit.
* Modern controls & strengthened bellcrank mount
* CA type hinges with gap seals
* $$$cote finish
* Added LG wire covers

Used all kit wood, kit was well engineered and parts fit was - quite GOOD! You guys waiting for Walter Umland's new kit ought to REALLY enjoy his! It is a very robust structure, in part because the fuselage is so wide and short. All in all it was a fun build, and I am looking forward to test flying next weekend. If this works OK I also have a Ringmaster Imperial waiting in the kit rack...

You like???

Leester · « **Reply #1 on:** August 20, 2007, 07:15:39 PM »

That really looks great Dennis. Hope it flys great for you also.

Randy Ryan · « **Reply #2 on:** August 20, 2007, 08:01:33 PM »

Very sweet Dennis, this has been on my build list for quite a while, but I think the camo is still my preference. Sure would like to be around whem you fly it, let us know, maybe I can make it over to the field.

Bill Little · « **Reply #3 on:** August 21, 2007, 06:49:16 AM »

Hi Dennis,

Looking good!

A friend of mine built one years ago with the big case '70s Fox 40 Stunt. He went all out, including the tail hook! It flew surprising well, but liked it around 5.0 with the thin airfoil.

I have one sitting here that I built in 1972! Never put more than a dozen or so flights on it. Need to pull it down and go through it to make sure it is airworthy. Mine had the Veco 35.

Dennis Adamisin · « **Reply #4 on:** August 21, 2007, 10:22:03 AM »

THANKS for the comments!

RANDY: Hope to test this weekend at the Signal Seekers field - assuming it is still above water and the road is still there!

BILL: I think it will have to fly a little fast. I plan on using 63' lines to give it a little more room to breathe and keep the lap times manageable. If it will fly at 5.0-5.3 I will be tickled to death!

Randy Ryan · « **Reply #5 on:** August 21, 2007, 06:50:29 PM »

Great, I'm going to try to fly Saturday morning.

Bill Little · « **Reply #6 on:** August 22, 2007, 08:09:45 AM »

Hi, Brother Dennis!

I would suspect that on 63' eye to eye that the Spit should perform pretty well at "around" 5.0! That should be enough airspeed to give that airfoil some lift.

I always thoght it strange that Sterling actually kitted a couple of full bodied stunt ships with swept forward trailing edge/flap design. The Spit and Ring. Imperial both had it. (and someone at Sterling really liked the K&B engines! )

rustler · « **Reply #7 on:** August 22, 2007, 02:10:01 PM »

Only slightly off topic - Last w/e we had our long planned Palmer 50th. Anniversary Celebration event at Woburn Abbey, where Palmer flew his Radial Cowl T'brd in 1957. The event went very well. Three U.S. visitors, Mike Scholtes who gained 3rd. place with his ARF Smoothy, Steve Sobel, who borrowed a profile Cardinal, and Roland Frestad (?), SAM Speaks editor. But I digress -

Quite unexpectedly we were treated to a heartwarming display by a Griffon Seafire, effectively a Spit. XVII I think I heard the commentator say. Lots of graceful angled passes shewing top and bottom views, and also including a loop right in front of the crowd. Terrific.

Louis Rankin · « **Reply #8 on:** August 22, 2007, 09:41:04 PM »

There is a Sterling Spitfire on ebay: 320150568744

Dave Adamisin · « **Reply #9 on:** August 27, 2007, 07:50:56 PM »

:!All right...... someone ask Dennis about the Seafire......

RandySmith · « **Reply #10 on:** August 27, 2007, 08:15:57 PM »

Quote from: Dave Adamisin on August 27, 2007, 07:50:56 PM

:!All right...... someone ask Dennis about the Seafire......

LOL So Dennis how is it going with the Seafire?
by the Way my buddy Scott Bair had one, it was 64 inch span and used a tiny little 8 ounce 65 in it, He like it and the color scheme is a really good one
I do like the one you painted a lot very nice looking ship

Regards
Randy

Dennis Adamisin · « **Reply #11 on:** August 27, 2007, 09:08:13 PM »

SO how's the Seafire - funny you should ask...!

Dave was out of town last weekend, since he got back all he's been getting is an earfull first from Dad, then me, and probably from Arch too about how good the engine and airplane work!

Its terrific! I am absolutely blown away by how well it flies - it was totally unexpected. It is 1958(?) design (by WHO?) with too thin a wing, too much assymetry, too short a fuselage and too small a tail. It is also powered by a K&B Greenhead 35 (off eBay) which NOBODY ever used for stunt.

However; it turns a really good corner. Tracks rounds, that elusive "on rails" feel. Flattens out on bottoms. The thin wing seems to keep flying The flaps are fairly wide but also fairly short span. At 48 oz it is not especially light but it gets it done. I'm helping it along by flying on 63' lines - that lets the airspeed creep up about 10% (versus 57' 6") while maintaining a managable 5.1-5.2 lap time.

As for the engine - it runs - perfect. Got a 4-2-4 that would shame a Fox. Lap times at the end of the pattern within 0.1 sec of the start. Using a 10x6 PowerPoint, 10% Omega (none of that 5/29 cough syrup for me!) and a 4 oz Brodak Uniflow tank, runs 6:15. The engine sounds like it could turn more prop - but there is no pressing need for that (yet). After it lands you can pick up the airplane by the engine cylinder head - its running cool. I did not find ANYTHING the engine did that was less than excellent. I have always thought of the Greenhead as a "hot" engine, better suited to going fast than stunt - I was WRONG about that. Best guess is that the (tongue) muffler pressurizing the Uniflow keeps it from running away. (Randy - your thoughts?)

I understand Walter Umland is bringing out a replica kit. of ths Spitfire - NO DOUBT it will build better and lighter than my Sterling version, I think a lot of people are going to be pleasantly surprised at how well this bird flies.

My Spitfire/Seafire has officially retired the Oriental as top bird, a least while I scramble to get a "Dennis design" in the air. Besides, I BUILT it and the Oriental is an ARF..!

I could not find a mention of the DESIGNER on the Sterling Spitfire plans - anybody know who it was? As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I also have a Ringmaster Imperial kit, that has all same features as the Spit; same thin airfoil only the wing is some 80 squares bigger> looks like the fuselage is the same only rolled over so the engine mounts upright. Looks like the same tail, except the elevator is not split to fit around the fuselage - it overhangs - Ringmaster style. I have no reason to believe it would fly any worse.

SCOTT BAIR! He published a really innovative Seafire - but I thought he used a ST60? RANDY- did you help him out with a horsepower transplant??? (OK, that was a dumb question!

) I seem to recall that Scott also had an earlier Spitfire version for a ST 46?

Bill Little · « **Reply #12 on:** August 28, 2007, 07:58:05 AM »

Hi Dennis,

It IS[/i] surprising, isn't it! HAHAHA!!

John Miller · « **Reply #13 on:** August 28, 2007, 10:53:35 AM »

Hi Dennis,

Nice job on the Seafire. I'm not suprized that the plane flies well. It's all a balance between design, weight, and power available.

I'm about to start the drawings for Walter's offering of the Sterling Spitfire. I hope to have some progress to show soon.

Oh, BTW, someone once told me that it was Matt Kania who designed both the Spitfire, and the Imperial.

Randy Ryan · « **Reply #14 on:** August 28, 2007, 06:02:19 PM »

Dennis,

I used a Torp .35 on my Veco Chief and it was great, your Dad should remember that. The only problem I had was it was very thirsty so I swapped it out for a Veco which is almost as thirsty. I was able the get full runs, but only with a way wild custom tank the extends up bertween the bearers. Anyway, I'm thinking of putting the Torp back in it, it was really nice. By the way, I was running suction uniflow, no pressure.

Dennis Adamisin · « **Reply #15 on:** August 28, 2007, 08:35:21 PM »

John:
Thanks for comments. Good to hear that the Spitfire plans are in for a FIRST CLASS treatment!

You know I would have GUESSED Kania, but the Spit & Imperial are not listed in the biography listed elsewhere in the Hanger. It is unclear to me if he was even still at Sterling then...? Its possible he could have set-up the design then left before it was produced - and "lost" his credit. Ditto the Imperial. They are consecutive kits in the S series, there seems to be a LOT of similar design content - like the fuselage cross-section. Are you doing the Imperial plans too? Do you see the similarities?

Randy:
Thank you too for the comments - sorry to have missed you out there. Sat it was a slow steady reain in Marshall and it was SUPPOSED to be raining in Detroit too. I took my time and didn't get to Dad's house til just after noon. - it was dry, then it sprinkled about 20 minutes later! Ended up blowing off the day.

Sunday was gorgeous only the road to the field was TREACHEROUS! My Dad did not mention your Chief. You say it was thirsty - I was getting around 6:15 on 4 oz of 10% Omega fuel - seemed about right. Did yours have a Muffler on it? I think that was helping to keep the engine from running way... Just a guess.

Randy Ryan · « **Reply #16 on:** August 28, 2007, 09:31:31 PM »

Dennis,

Yes, I was running a muffler of myown design, I make these real light sheet aluminum tongue mufflers, the little Shoestring has one on it. 5% nitro and 29% molassus. Art probably didn't even think of it, maybe he's forgotten, but he was quite surprized at how nice it ran, and of course he loves the Chief anyway.

I tried to get out in the morning but as you say it was raining. In the afternoon mama bear wanted to "do something" so we did.....something. Sunday was gorgeous, but I hadn't cut my grass since the Friday before and it needed it, both acres. Supposed to be nice all weekend and I'm gonna try to get out then. If the wind is OK tomorrow evening I'm going then too.

RandySmith · « **Reply #17 on:** September 03, 2007, 02:27:20 PM »

Quote from: Dennis Adamisin on August 27, 2007, 09:08:13 PM

SO how's the Seafire - funny you should ask...! Dave was out of town last weekend, since he got back all he's been getting is an earfull first from Dad, then me, and probably from Arch too about how good the engine and airplane work!

Its terrific! I am absolutely blown away by how well it flies - it was totally unexpected. It is 1958(?) design (by WHO?) with too thin a wing, too much assymetry, too short a fuselage and too small a tail. It is also powered by a K&B Greenhead 35 (off eBay) which NOBODY ever used for stunt.

However; it turns a really good corner. Tracks rounds, that elusive "on rails" feel. Flattens out on bottoms. The thin wing seems to keep flying The flaps are fairly wide but also fairly short span. At 48 oz it is not especially light but it gets it done. I'm helping it along by flying on 63' lines - that lets the airspeed creep up about 10% (versus 57' 6") while maintaining a managable 5.1-5.2 lap time.

As for the engine - it runs - perfect. Got a 4-2-4 that would shame a Fox. Lap times at the end of the pattern within 0.1 sec of the start. Using a 10x6 PowerPoint, 10% Omega (none of that 5/29 cough syrup for me!) and a 4 oz Brodak Uniflow tank, runs 6:15. The engine sounds like it could turn more prop - but there is no pressing need for that (yet). After it lands you can pick up the airplane by the engine cylinder head - its running cool. I did not find ANYTHING the engine did that was less than excellent. I have always thought of the Greenhead as a "hot" engine, better suited to going fast than stunt - I was WRONG about that. Best guess is that the (tongue) muffler pressurizing the Uniflow keeps it from running away. (Randy - your thoughts?)

I understand Walter Umland is bringing out a replica kit. of ths Spitfire - NO DOUBT it will build better and lighter than my Sterling version, I think a lot of people are going to be pleasantly surprised at how well this bird flies.

My Spitfire/Seafire has officially retired the Oriental as top bird, a least while I scramble to get a "Dennis design" in the air. Besides, I BUILT it and the Oriental is an ARF..!

I could not find a mention of the DESIGNER on the Sterling Spitfire plans - anybody know who it was? As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I also have a Ringmaster Imperial kit, that has all same features as the Spit; same thin airfoil only the wing is some 80 squares bigger> looks like the fuselage is the same only rolled over so the engine mounts upright. Looks like the same tail, except the elevator is not split to fit around the fuselage - it overhangs - Ringmaster style. I have no reason to believe it would fly any worse.

SCOTT BAIR! He published a really innovative Seafire - but I thought he used a ST60? RANDY- did you help him out with a horsepower transplant??? (OK, that was a dumb question! ) I seem to recall that Scott also had an earlier Spitfire version for a ST 46?

HI Dennis

I have been away at the US Team Trials for the past week or so, so I have not been online very much.
I am very happy to hear how well the new ship flys, but I am not surprised, I always thought that was a nice design.
Scott Bair did indeed have many SeaFires, or Stunt Fires as he liked to call them. I have 4 of them here, and one that is in raw wood that will get finished one day soon
Scott didn't need any help with engines, although we did many many projects together. Scott ,as did I ,built racecars back in high school and loves all type of high performance motors. he has all the tools to build anything he likes and routinly had homemade or bored and stroked 64, 65, 74, 88s in the Stuntfires. I have always been into airplanes and motors and Scott was a very big help to me.
His first smaller one was what would be 60 size but had an FSR that was pushed out to 57, it flew nice but not as well as the big guys. Scott's later ships had 3 to 3.5 inch spinners, scale size fuses, and 19 inch tail moments, they weighed in at about 45 ounces with a 64 or 65 in them, he used Revup 16.x 4.5 props and 15x 5 Revups, Those were the lightest of the big props that were out there then.
I let Billy Werwage take one home a few years back and he had a blast flying it.
I may have to take one out soon and reintroduce myself to it :-)

maybe I will see yours sometimes soon.

As far as the pressure on the muffler goes, Yes that will slow, delay or even stop the break on some motors. I don't like muffler pressure but when it helps there is no reason not to use it. early in the 70s I ran OS Max 35s engines, mine came with .305 venturies, which are too big...so... I ran muffler pressure on all of them. That stopped the runaway and hard breaks I got out of the big venturies, and smoothed out the engine runs, With pressure I could also set the motor faster without it kicking into a almost constant 2 stroke in the maneuvers

have fun

regards
Randy

Dennis Adamisin · « **Reply #18 on:** September 07, 2007, 11:57:44 PM »

Randy
Thanx for the kind words. I guess I was just surprised that the old Sterling kit flies so well. The moments are too short the wing too thin and there's WAY to much assymetry - so it ignores my paradigms and prejudices and flies well. HMMPH!

After reading your note I had to dig-up my copy of Scott Bair's Stuntfire article. For a heavy builder like me, Scott's build weights read like fantasy! Heck I scarely can build a 35 ship to the weights he hit with the 60 size StuntFire! Then he matched up those weights with the high lift wing and high power plus the MONSTER 15 & 16" props - this is all well outside my realm of experience! The StuntFire is a strong counterpoint to that POV that a CLPA model can be built too light.

You said Billy took one home - how do you think it influenced him on the development of his P-47's?

john e. holliday · « **Reply #19 on:** September 08, 2007, 08:26:46 AM »

Dennis, after reading all of this, it makes me anxious to get the Walter Umland version of the Sterling Spitfire kit. At least I hope he doesn't forget me. Taking forever to finish the P-39. DOC Holliday

Dennis Adamisin · « **Reply #20 on:** September 08, 2007, 06:37:10 PM »

Doc:
I have never had the pleasure of building one of Walter's kits, but from what I have read it seems a cinch that it will build better and LIGHTER than the Sterling kit. One thing I did that probably was different than 1958; I am using 63' lines eyelet to eyelet, so the bird can fly "fast" while still maintaining 5.0-5.2 lap times. A curious thing: we tried richening the engine some, and the lap times scarcely changed; I think that thin wing lets it keep the flying speed.