stunthanger.com
Classic Designs => Classic Planes => Topic started by: Dave_Trible on April 13, 2014, 06:47:07 AM
-
Though I'm not going to do a build thread on this I wanted to share the project a little. The wing is mostly done and putting the controls in. For the most part I'm using the kit wood with only a few changes. The flaps are a hybrid balsa/granite composite that would need 'power tools' to shape so those are being replaced with some 1/4" I found at the LHS that I'd call 7-8#. The top block isn't really too bad and would be OK hollowed thin but I'll go 4-6# there and the fuse sides I'm going to cut from 7-8# to replace the multi-piece sides in the kit. This one isn't about weight, just want one piece sides. My deviations from the kit so far are to add adjustable lead outs that add a limited amount, but some travel. The flap horn arrangement on the plans show bending a Veco horn for the tapered trailing edge. Everything about that bothers me so you can see I'm making split horns for the flaps. Thought I'd put my Delrin controls in but they are overkill and heavy for this so doing it more conventionally. Putting in a 3" Fox bellcrank I had with brass bushings JBed in. This machine will get a new K&B Stallion .35.
Dave
-
...
-
Yes John I did. That's why it was a BIG DEAL for me to find and build another. Sort of a living history project. Had a Fox in that one.
-
Hi Dave,
I have one I built around 1972. It is still in great shape, maybe 2 dozen flights on it, but it was heavy. I plan on restoring it with some changes. Making everything as light as I can and putting on a better finish. I flew it with a Veco .35.
Denny Adamison built one a couple years ago and powered it with a Green Head Torp. 35. Said it did fine!
BIG Bear
RNMM/AMM
-
Bill I'd like to see a picture if you can. I'm going to silk mine with a very thin finish. I saw a great color photo of one in the Aussie AF that I think I'm going to copy. It's light grey with a grey/green camo. It's light enough I think I won't lose it in the trees when flying. My last camo P40 would flat vanish on me on the bottoms and had to go by feel. No wonder not much hair on my head! I have somewhere a picture of one at an English museum in all white-winter snow camo I guess. That would be easy!
-
Looks good Dave. Here's another paint scheme you may consider...
-
Looks good Dave. Here's another paint scheme you may consider...
That sure is pretty. Did you ever fly that crate? I just noticed the canopy is tinted. That's a nice touch I might do to this one.
-
I only got in a couple flights with it right at the end of last season. It seemed like it flew pretty well but the outboard tip was down just slightly, and up inverted. It might not be a bad idea to move the wing up on this design, you might seriously consider doing so if you're not too far along.
-
Wayne that's a little warp. Put a small tab, say 3/4" by 4" angled down maybe 15 degrees under the out board wing toward the tip just ahead of the hinge line. You can use .040 canopy plastic. Add a 1/2" mounting flange and heat with a heat gun to bend to the desired angle. Clear bathroom silicone will stick it on until you want it off without a mark on the plane. Fly the plane to see if its enough/ too much and adjust accordingly. Don't tweak!!! Tweak not- break not! The smallest warp, misalignment or mis-shaping of the leading edge or tip can cause this. Having just built this elliptical wing i'll attest as to how hard it can be to get this wing straight. I got creative in jig making. The wing location in the fuse has nothing to do with what you experienced. Many of these built and flown without this issue and it falls within reasonable measures. Let me know.....
-
Wayne that's a little warp. Put a small tab, say 3/4" by 4" angled down maybe 15 degrees under the out board wing toward the tip just ahead of the hinge line. You can use .040 canopy plastic. Add a 1/2" mounting flange and heat with a heat gun to bend to the desired angle. Clear bathroom silicone will stick it on until you want it off without a mark on the plane. Fly the plane to see if its enough/ too much and adjust accordingly. Don't tweak!!! Tweak not- break not! The smallest warp, misalignment or mis-shaping of the leading edge or tip can cause this. Having just built this elliptical wing i'll attest as to how hard it can be to get this wing straight. I got creative in jig making. The wing location in the fuse has nothing to do with what you experienced. Many of these built and flown without this issue and it falls within reasonable measures. Let me know.....
That's quite possible Dave, and thanks, but warp or not I do think that moving the wing up to better the vertical CG would help this design.
-
The 'thing ' about that though is that would change the design and would, should make it not eligible for classic competition. I do tend to see the world through that lens. I guess if I can't compete with something then I won't build it. Regardless of the cause the tab should fix it. Now to the flying field- test flying Asteroid today!
-
Yep, in some parts of this great land you would get your hands slapped for moving the wing up in a Classic Plane for competition. Umlands kit is as close as you can get to the Sterling kit without the die crunch and heavy wood. H^^
-
The 'thing ' about that though is that would change the design and would, should make it not eligible for classic competition. I do tend to see the world through that lens. I guess if I can't compete with something then I won't build it. Regardless of the cause the tab should fix it. Now to the flying field- test flying Asteroid today!
I agree Dave, and I typically stick with that approach as well. I'm just pointing out that if someone was building one of these and wanted to try to "upgrade" the flight qualities that moving the wing up would be something to consider.
-
Yes you could fiddle with the design and improve it to today's standards. If we were going to follow that through we'd add some tail volume and might pull the tail back among other things. I think I'd rather just get out a clean sheet of paper and start drawing. Never was one to bash much but that's why this hobby offers so much. You can order ala cart and hold the mayo....
-
Just as an interesting aside, I test flew the Asteroid today. It did exactly what you are describing the Spit does; outside tip down. Sure can't see any warps but obviously a little something. In my building thread you will find a full on side view photo of the plane. No chance really of a vertical CG problem, at least in that direction. Yet the same issue. I quickly fixed that before the second flight. These airplanes are my first with segmented flaps. The outer 5" are separate from the inner section but tied together with a 1/16" music wire joiner. This allowed an easy field tweak of about 1/8" on each flap that instantly solved the problem. What caused it? Who cares- its history.
-
On this April 15th tax day I know my retirement plan is in order.
-
I love Hurricanes .... prettiest ugly fighter plane ever flown in combat ...
-
I love Hurricanes .... prettiest ugly fighter plane ever flown in combat ...
They are a favorite of mine. Maybe even like it better than a Spit.
-
You will have those done before summer gets here. LL~ LL~ I know you better than that. Projects for next building season, right? My self I build year round. Guess that is why I don't get much flying in. Would have made it out yesterday, but grand kids and school interfered.
-
You will have those done before summer gets here. LL~ LL~ I know you better than that. Projects for next building season, right? My self I build year round. Guess that is why I don't get much flying in. Would have made it out yesterday, but grand kids and school interfered.
I don't think I'll get them all built quite that soon. I will likely build one a year around my other projects which means I will have them built BEFORE I retire. Never fear, my backlog of plan sets for building might outlive me. Yesterday I got in three flights on the new one and broke in a K&B .35 series 70. Wasn't out long and you didn't miss much. The wind started up and I headed for the barn. The bit about building during flying weather; I'm trying to break the habit but still fall off the wagon some.
-
Well when it is too windy or it's raining, what else is there to do, other than the computer.
-
Hey Trib
I built a Sterling Spit awhile back, powered with a K&B 35GH just like the one my dad built in 1962 or so. I did mine in Canadian Naval colors. Looks great flies great. Prepare to be amazed at how this 1958 (or so) design performs...
-
Oh... Ah... That's cool Denny! I like it. These things just always look good. I know they can fly well too. 'They' knew what they were doing even back when we were kids...just after Lincoln. Mine suddenly stopped when I got my toys from Igor. Trying to remember anything I ever knew about electronics. The wing is done and should get back to it soon. Thank you for the photos. Like to download those....hmm...
-
That's a great looking Spitfire Dennis, I don't think I've ever seen a "Canuck" one.
-
Not much prettier than the Spitfire wing planform. Tempts me to enlarge and use it on a 'super stunter'. Inching along.
-
Those split horns installed.
-
Dave, you need some 00 silkspan for that bird. If you want it come by and get it. Give me a call first as I usually don't get up before 0900 and back to bed about 2000. Oh, sometimes I even stay up till 2200. LL~ LL~
-
Not much prettier than the Spitfire wing planform. Tempts me to enlarge and use it on a 'super stunter'. Inching along.
Dave, If possible, I'd be curious how much your wing weighs just like it is there? I've also got one about that far along, cept it's been stuck at that stage since about 1988 LL~ LL~. Mine ust feels heavy as a brick HB~> I'm ust curious what others weigh I guess. H^^
Looking good so far though!
-
I like the split flap horns ....
-
Dennis I'll get it for tonight.. Out earning the daily bread. Mine too feels a bit chunky but the rest of the airplane is pretty minimal so most weight is concentrated in the wing. One could build these from all 4-6# wood but I'm not sure the thing would be stiff enough what with the 1/8" sq. spars and such. I think they were designed around using harder wood. A lot of FF airplanes used this idea. Minimal structure with harder wood to resist flex and warpage. Anyway I'll get you a number when I can.
-
Dave, you need some 00 silkspan for that bird. If you want it come by and get it. Give me a call first as I usually don't get up before 0900 and back to bed about 2000. Oh, sometimes I even stay up till 2200. LL~ LL~
John I'm going to cover this in that new Thai silk I got. Cross your fingers!
-
Hi Dave,
Looking at the picture of the kits you have I realized I had four of them at one time, myself. I had the Nobler and the Ares as a "kid", then got the Spitfire and Skylark after I was married. And, as I said, I still have the Spitfire. A friend of mine wanted the Skylark so we swapped, I got a Sig Akrobat in the swap.
Sometime later I will tell a pretty funny story that Bill W. told me about the Ambroid Ares kit.
BIG Bear
RNMM/AMM
-
Bill as a teen I built all these except the Dolphin. Don't remember ever seeing a Jetco kit in the KC area. Maybe the jobbers doing business with the hobby shops here didn't carry them. The one I really screwed up was the Skylark in three ways. It was pretty but too heavy. I built my first control hardware for it and it was real junk. And finally I learned about the sin of sharp leading edges. I hope to do better next time.
BTW Bill. I found a Red Head Merco .35 to put in the Warburton Tony. Be nice if the mounting is the same as the Blackstreak. Haven't checked it out yet.
-
Hi Dave,
You will like the Red Head Merco. A true Classic engine run, etc..
The Skylark is on my bucket list, but I am going to built the ".46" size from plans by Bill Byles and Ed Southwick. It is Classic legal and Ed used the McCoy .40RH to the best of my knowledge.
BIG Bear
RNMM/AMM
-
I met Bill at a Nats (which one?) when he was flying that Skylark. Very fine it was. I'm pretty sure he must have had something bigger than the Mac.40 in it though. Dale Gleason kicks it with a regular size machine w/ Tigre .51. I'm thinking either Red Head Mac or Series 21 in mine. I sure don't know what Bill had in his but the airplane was every bit Tigre .46 size and that's what most of us were using at the time. If there are plans to that available I'd like to get a set.....
-
Dave are you talking about Ed Southwick's Skylark that was kitted by Sterling? I think I had the first one in KC way back then. Made the mistake of building the wing in two halves. Then a few years ago I copied a Skylark kit and built the wing in one piece. Great flying plane. By the Ed used the then new McCoy Redhead .40 that Dick McCoy set up for him. Lost a great couple in the Southwick's. Was always great to see them at VSC.
A side note the last time I seen Darrel Palmer he still had the old green Skylark I built.
-
John, Bill and I are talking about two airplanes. The original Sterling kit and an enlarged version that Bill Byles had. It looked identical but enlarged quite a bit-say 10% or more. I'd have put it around 700 sq. in. I did not know it was classic legal. That would make it at least three or four years older than I knew about. I sort of think Bills was orange or red. Maybe he'll see this and chime in.
I put the Spitfire wing as shown on the scale; 14 ounces with one ounce of tip weight and adjustable leadout guide and landing gear installed. No feather but I'm sure it will be fine. Going to use a plastic clunk tank and feather light wheels to cut some. Didn't have those luxuries in the old days. Not going crazy on finish either.
-
Thanks Dave, I need to work on mine then, it's at 13oz without the flaps but with two big Dubro wheels. I haven't done any final shaping yet, so it may come down some. Either way, I guess I feel a bit better y1 Looking forward to seeing yours done H^^
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v405/Aeroclub/Spitfire16TE3841957.jpg)
(http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/3962616-3x2-940x627.jpg)
-
Great pix Matt! Aussie Spits I bet. Didn't everything get the sharks mouth?
-
I met Bill at a Nats (which one?) when he was flying that Skylark. Very fine it was. I'm pretty sure he must have had something bigger than the Mac.40 in it though. Dale Gleason kicks it with a regular size machine w/ Tigre .51. I'm thinking either Red Head Mac or Series 21 in mine. I sure don't know what Bill had in his but the airplane was every bit Tigre .46 size and that's what most of us were using at the time. If there are plans to that available I'd like to get a set.....
Hi Dave,
When I was talking to Bill about the Skylark, he said Ed had built them in 3 sizes. The one Sterling kitted at a 52" WS, the one he was using when he went to the WC at 56" WS, and a ".60 size" (can't remember the WS). There wasn't a ST .46 available so he used the McCoy .40 set up by Dick McCoy in his 56" model back in the day. He was using the ST .46 before his passing in the 56" model. I'm pretty sure Dale is using the 56" model. Bill has plans that he did with Ed for the 56" model. That is the one on my bucket list.
BIG Bear
RNMM/AMM
-
Thanks Bill. I didn't know about 3. I'd wager the one I saw was the .60 size. Maybe Dale will be up here with his for the Topeka contest. I'll sneak over and measure it. My uncle (Bill Noyes) sent me a picture when I was a kid of the two Skylarks he had at that time and was flying there in California. That picture suspiciously looks like the same picture on the Sterling kit box......wish I knew if I still had that picture somewhere-doubt it.
-
Those split horns installed.
Just for the record. You suggest that this wing is not intended for a serious competitive CLPA model. There is nothing wrong with putting split flap horns on a sport ship. However, for those contemplating split horns for a competitive CLPA model, it would behoove one to heed the words and practices of a serious multi national CLPA champion who has been quoted that there is no such thing as flaps that are too stiff and for a flap control horn to be too stiff. That individual goes to great length to avoid using any form of split flat horns on his models though those models have noticeable swept forward flap hinge lines and dihedral. The problem with split flap horns is that they allow the flaps to flex unsymmetrically because of the different loads on the flaps while maneuvering. They cause trim problems in roll and yaw that are virtually impossible to correct. For a sport model, fine, but for trimming for ultimate performance in the maneuvers, split flap horns are to be avoided. There are solutions to minimize excessive flexing from one flap to the other caused by flexible or split flap horns.
Please note that I am not condemning the example shown in this thread. I am just explaining that for those that have not experienced these things, that split flap horns are not a good thing to use on a CLPA model intended for serious competition. For sport fliers, they can work just fine. But for the golden arms at the top of the food chain, they are to be avoided.
Keith
-
Hi Keith. I think this WAS a serious model but I meant more about sizing it up for modern .61+ piped engines. The design is sound enough. For a ship this size I think I've made the split horns stiff enough. My concern about bending a straight horn for the tapered trailing edge is two-fold. The geometry puts the horn in something of a mechanical bind, putting wear and stress on hinges and horn. Also bending the horn here weakens the horn and might fracture the braze. The split horns at least get around these issues. I've done this a few times in previous years also with V tailed airplanes where a 30 degree angle made it nessessary. If the pushrod fork is stiff and close then I don't think there is much compromised.
-
Hi Keith. I think this WAS a serious model but I meant more about sizing it up for modern .61+ piped engines. The design is sound enough. For a ship this size I think I've made the split horns stiff enough. My concern about bending a straight horn for the tapered trailing edge is two-fold. The geometry puts the horn in something of a mechanical bind, putting wear and stress on hinges and horn. Also bending the horn here weakens the horn and might fracture the braze. The split horns at least get around these issues. I've done this a few times in previous years also with V tailed airplanes where a 30 degree angle made it nessessary. If the pushrod fork is stiff and close then I don't think there is much compromised.
I am not quite sure what you mean when you write about not wanting to bend the horn. Of course, a horn that is bent to match the flap forward sweep will bind and resist any deflection. (However, there is another solution here, but it sort of goes beyond the scope of this discussion.)
You would be surprised that with the relatively small amount of forward swept flaps that is shown in your photo that a single straight flap horn will work. Then, there is no compromise of excessive flexing from one flap to the other. I know it does not make sense because intuitively, one would think that as soon as the flaps start to deflect, there would be a bind that would restrict the movement of the flaps after a few degrees of deflection. That does not happen. Bill Werwage showed us that with his Juno that appears to have more forward sweep than your wing shows. My explanation for this single horn operation is that there is enough flex in the wood around the horn as well as flexing in the hinges and the wood holding the hinges that binding due to flap deflection does not start to occur until well beyond the 30 to 35 degrees maximum deflection of the flaps. I have no small amount of experience regarding this matter. I am just saying that for those who have not yet delved into this matter of swept forward flaps and dihedral, and top performance is desired, a split flap horn is not a desirable solution. Particularly when other solutions are available.
Yes, I am sure your model will be fully capable of flying a stunt pattern, and it will probably be totally satisfactory to you. It is just that better performance can be had with a properly installed single flap horn. It will avoid trim problems that will be encountered due to unequal flexing of the flaps during the maneuvers, particularly how the airplane responds in all of the eights and four leaf clover.
An alternative is to use "Lucky Boxes" which use only a single horn with the horn wire able to translate inside the flap. I have the elevators of a scale Swee' Pea Goodyear racer that has 40o dihedral under each side of the stabilizer with a single horn, using Lucky Boxes. The operation is completely smooth and there is no "slop" or any excessive flexing of the elevators from one side to the other.
And before anyone jumps to conclusions, the famous multi-time National Champions referenced in my previous post is not Bill Werwage with his Juno referenced above.
Keith
-
Very pretty plane Keith!!! Seems I did the lucky boxes once and yes they sure worked fine. A straight horn across the TE would probably been fine too. The plans call for bending a straight Veco horn and no apparent bearings or binding to the wing trailing edge. That would work for a while but I wouldn't think good over a lot of flying. This way I expect the bird will be around long after I am.
-
May've mentioned this once before: Fort Benning, GA, 1964, flew someone's Sterling Spit' and was amazed by its performance. Granted, it had no real finish...a dusting of overall grey paint...K&B .35 GH power.
It was a joy to fly. Turned extremely tight corners on Squares and Wingover...very close to the asphalt.
Then again, that was with then-24-year-old reflexes. Wouldn't want to try it today.
-
John, Bill and I are talking about two airplanes. The original Sterling kit and an enlarged version that Bill Byles had. It looked identical but enlarged quite a bit-say 10% or more. I'd have put it around 700 sq. in. I did not know it was classic legal. That would make it at least three or four years older than I knew about. I sort of think Bills was orange or red. Maybe he'll see this and chime in.
I put the Spitfire wing as shown on the scale; 14 ounces with one ounce of tip weight and adjustable leadout guide and landing gear installed. No feather but I'm sure it will be fine. Going to use a plastic clunk tank and feather light wheels to cut some. Didn't have those luxuries in the old days. Not going crazy on finish either.
Hi Dave,
The Skylark that Ed originally designed & built in the mid/late fifties had a 56" span and was powered by a McCoy Red Head .40. When Sterling was going to kit the airplane Ed Southwick went to dinner with Ed Manulkin (owner of Sterling at the time) & Manulkin showed Ed Southwick the plans to be included with the kitted Skylark. As was normal for Sterling the plans were a preliminary assembly drawing shown step by step and did not have a size reference. As kitted the Sterling Skylark was smaller than Ed's design, apparently to fit the kit boxes. Ed Southwick told me that he was really disappointed with Sterling's kit due to the fact that Ed Manulkin did not tell him about the size reduction. The kit airplane flies really well, but Ed Southwick much preferred the 56" span original version. Sterling then wanted to kit Ed's Lark, but Ed was pretty disappointed with Sterling by then and declined to have them kit it.
In about 1993 I started to build a Skylark from the original plans & patterns from Ed and remembered that back in the day when I was building Larks & Skylarks there were some errors/incosistencies in the original plans. As a mechanical engineer I offered to re-draw the plans for Ed. He gladly accepted & that is how I came to re-draw the plans for both the Lark (Ed's design that preceded the Skylark) and the Skylark.
I met you at the 1995 Nats in Tri-Cities, Washington state. I flew my Lark (Super Tigre .46) in classic, and my own enlarged version of Ed's Skylark in Open. The Skylark I flew was 60" span powered by a Randy Smith OS .46VF with a Smith-Werwage tuned pipe setup. It had 722 square inches (it was not classic legal) but was really overweight; I was lucky to end up in the top 20 with it. I painted it red (Porsche Guards Red) overall with two trim colors.
I also purchased an Impact kit from you at that Nats which you shipped to me after the Nats. That was an extremely nice kit with good wood selected for both weight & grain type and accurately cut. With a PA engine on a tuned pipe the Impact finished up at 59 ounces and was a really good flyer.
-
Hello Bill. Thanks for the back story and filling in for my failed memory. Your big Skylark was impressive to me and sure a beautiful thing. Skylarks have a special classy look about them somehow, the distinct rudder shape and unusual cowling to me stand out. One of the earliest stunters I saw as a youngster was a pretty metallic blue one here in KC built and flown by local legend Ray Reinschmitt. A thing awesome to me. Now I'm curious; the original 56" span airplane. Was the span just longer (higher aspect ratio) or was it larger by scale overall? In other words what would it take to your memory to get a kit Skylark up to the 56" version? I bought an after market set of plans off the bay a while back. I should dig those up and see what it is. Another question is what larger version is classic legal. Is that the one you had in Washington? I have a new PA .51 looking for a job.
It's very nice to hear from you and I hope you get out to Muncie one of these times. I know it's a haul for you. And thank you for your kind words about the Impact kit. Wish I could today get the kind of wood I did in those days. Riley was sure I got good stuff.
I checked the plans I bought-straight kit version. They do have a full size fuselage drawing that the Sterling kit doesn't. That seems to be a common thing for Sterling.
-
Hi Dave,
(from the "other Bill") I think a PA .51 in the 56" Skylark would be a knock out set up. I would go with the rear muffler for Classic and it would do a great job everywhere short of Top 5 Day at the NATS.
BIG Bear
RNMM/AMM
-
Dave I was fortunate enough to meet Ed and his lovely wife at VSC. He had his planes with him.. Ed was not much bigger than you and him holding those planes made them look even larger. Yes the Skylark he flew was bigger than the Sterling kit. His lark looked even huge. And he did a beautiful job flying them. It was really sad to here of them getting killed in a car wreck. Let me look and see if I have either of the kits that Ken Smith made at the time. Later, DOC Holliday
-
Hello Bill. Thanks for the back story and filling in for my failed memory. Your big Skylark was impressive to me and sure a beautiful thing. Skylarks have a special classy look about them somehow, the distinct rudder shape and unusual cowling to me stand out. One of the earliest stunters I saw as a youngster was a pretty metallic blue one here in KC built and flown by local legend Ray Reinschmitt. A thing awesome to me. Now I'm curious; the original 56" span airplane. Was the span just longer (higher aspect ratio) or was it larger by scale overall? In other words what would it take to your memory to get a kit Skylark up to the 56" version? I bought an after market set of plans off the bay a while back. I should dig those up and see what it is. Another question is what larger version is classic legal. Is that the one you had in Washington? I have a new PA .51 looking for a job.
It's very nice to hear from you and I hope you get out to Muncie one of these times. I know it's a haul for you. And thank you for your kind words about the Impact kit. Wish I could today get the kind of wood I did in those days. Riley was sure I got good stuff.
I checked the plans I bought-straight kit version. They do have a full size fuselage drawing that the Sterling kit doesn't. That seems to be a common thing for Sterling.
Hi Dave,
The Lark (semi-elliptical trailing edge wing & full elliptical horizontal tail) that I flew to 5th place in Classic at the 1995 Nats was Ed's design just prior to the Skylark. The Lark has a 58" span with the same root chord as the original (56" span) Skylark. The Sterling kit skylark had a 52" span with the same root chord and airfoil as Ed's original 56" span Skylark.
Again, the piped Skylark that I flew at the 1995 Nats was not classic legal as it was a one-off modification of Ed's Skylark. I just extended the span to 60" & used larger flaps, and powered it with an OS .46VF on a tuned pipe. Even as porky as that Skylark was the OS .46VF did a good job of hauling it around.
Two Skylarks are classic legal: Ed's original 56" span airplane and the Sterling kit size airplane with a 52" span. I think that the 56" span airplane with your either a Super Tigre .46 or your Super Tigre .51 would be a good combination.
-
FWIW: The RSM kit of the Skylark can be built as any of the versions that have been mentioned in this post. The plans show all three and note that only the 52" and 56" are classic legal. 8)
-
Coming along slowly....I'm enjoying this build! Might get it done and fly in the fall classic contest in Topeka.
-
Yes Charles, exactly per plan. I did replace the wood here with something not quite so hard and heavy but traced right off the kit parts. Thought to not cut out the holes but decided to keep it true to original.
-
Coming along slowly....I'm enjoying this build! Might get it done and fly in the fall classic contest in Topeka.
Looks great Dave! y1
Must be a real late version, with a 14 cylinder Merlin? S?P :##
-
Looks great Dave! y1
Must be a real late version, with a 14 cylinder Merlin? S?P :##
Why do I feel like I'm going to lose this discussion? Just because you mention it I think the ship was modeled after one of the latest Griffon engined Marks. In my opinion they give up a little of that classic Spitfire look but still pretty sharp anyway. Also the ones the US used and left all aluminum look a bit strange to me. Camo-Spit, Spit-Camo. Spit-Blank? Kind of like a P 40 less a sharks mouth.
-
Hoping you'll show up John! Worked late most all week so I've been able to fly a few flights each morning this week. Weather has been great- if not too still at times. See ya soon!
-
To still ? That is a problem I would like to have. It is winter again in NY.
-
Sorry Joe! We just started getting flying weather here in the last couple weeks. Waiting now for the spring monsoon. I'll push some of this east- be there soon!
-
Yesterday I got a lot done. I put in 13-14 flights in the morning, then covered the Spitfire and Firecat in the new Thai silk. Here they have a wet coat of dope on. Looks like it's going to take about four coats of Certified tautening to get the silk snugged up.
-
...
-
Hi Dave,
The Spit is really sharp! On the Firecat, where did the red silk come from? ;D Looks super sharp!
BIG Bear
RNMM/AMM
-
Bill that's from Thai Silk in California. It's very nice and very cheap for silk. There is a thread here on it or just Google it.
-
Bill that's from Thai Silk in California. It's very nice and very cheap for silk. There is a thread here on it or just Google it.
Hi Dave,
I use Thai silk, I just didn't know I could get it in colors! I will check the site since I just might be willing to use some colored silk before long.
Thanks!
Bill
-
Planes still great even with all the wrinkles. Should have seen the Thirteen before that last coat of butyrate dope. I am trying to decide what color to use on the SR for the wings and tail. Guess I will go to fabric store and see what they have.
*SR=Super Ringmaster.
-
Doc I didn't know you could still buy good covering silk at a fabric store....but this Thai silk is good. For some reason the silver used on the Spit shrinks a little better than the red on the Firecat. I'll be tempted to carry the planes in the car a day or two and let the heat help shrink the stuff. What heat? Watching it rain on my day off! Rather be flying. I'm trying to sort through and re-pitch about eight props for Duke. I keep ending up from 5.5 to 5.8 on laps. Twisting more and more pitch. Still Duke will stay out and do a pretty fair pattern that slow but looking to go faster in the four cycle....... X$&XX rain!!!
-
Send that rain over here to California. We're having a drought. #^
Jerry
-
Send that rain over here to California. We're having a drought. #^
Jerry
And a few quakes I hear Jerry! I know its bone dry there. My sis lives in La Quinta and I'm always worried about wildfires around her. You guys need to freshen some of that ocean water up! Drying up next to the biggest water mass on the planet.....and we think we're smart?
-
Why do I feel like I'm going to lose this discussion? Just because you mention it I think the ship was modeled after one of the latest Griffon engined Marks. In my opinion they give up a little of that classic Spitfire look but still pretty sharp anyway. Also the ones the US used and left all aluminum look a bit strange to me. Camo-Spit, Spit-Camo. Spit-Blank? Kind of like a P 40 less a sharks mouth.
You missed my fun-intended poke Dave, I was only razzing you because at a glance it looks like you have seven exhaust stacks per side on the model. I'm sure the most forward one on each side is representing a heat shield or something. Having the bubble canopy the Sterling model is loosely designed around a later model Spit, but there never were any 14 cylinder Merlins or Griffons like I tossed you the jab about.
-
Yes I got it Wayne. I didn't even think about it when I sanded the segments into the wood strip. I was more concerned about getting them pretty even. Still have to build the radiators and glue them to the silk on the bottom.
I got to the drawing board a little last night and started drawing up my next full stunt ship. I'm putting my Merlin .75 into a semi scale Wedell Williams racer. Not going to build it soon but it will have some moulded parts and be take- apart so wanted to start thinking about all that.
-
Hey Dave they do have a heavier weight of silk than we normally use. I go to the poly-ester fabric section. Have to sort through to find the light weight stuff. Originally called jacket lining material. It can be shrunk with an iron. Evan after a coat or two of dope I still hit it with an iron.
-
I couldn't find a Spit plan the right size, so I started with a Profile Pub 3-view and drew my own. This one started with a RO-JETT 74 with electric retracts. My miscalculations resulted in about 4 oz. lead in the tail!
After a couple flights, something had to go! I replaced the engine with the lighter RO-JETT 61 and took out the retracts and all the tail lead. Now I have a truly decent stunter at 65 oz.
I see many Spit stunters, but why would anyone build one without dihedral?
Floyd
-
Luv your Spit Floyd, I will be building the Brodak version soon, modifying it to a bubble top-plans of which Pat has drawn and can be purchased thru Aero Products. Engine...too early to tell. 8)
-
That's really nice Floyd!
-
With the Spit getting close I've been eyeing the next project. I ordered wood from Sig for the Space Hound. The build is complex in areas- not sure why but......Putting in a Tono 5.6. I have two now. I get nervous about building an airplane around an obscure engine but with two....also thrilled to find the McCoy Series 21 engines are an exact drop in fit for the Tono. I have a good supply of new ones.
-
A Spacehound stunter?
-
Hi Wayne. Yes the Space Hound was a Soviet era design by Yuri Sirotkin from the USSR in the early sixties and was flown at the World Champs I believe in 1964. It used the MVVS 5.6 rear intake engine. I'm going to use the Tono 5.6 from the same era and country, also rear intake. It's a neat looking airplane that completely embodies the eastern block stunt ships of the time. I never forgot a photo I saw of it as a kid in the American Modeller Annual of it flying in the European Criterium of Champions. The picture didn't explain the airplane and it wasn't until recently I was able to I.D. the thing and find plans.
-
Hi Wayne. Yes the Space Hound was a Soviet era design by Yuri Sirotkin from the USSR in the early sixties and was flown at the World Champs I believe in 1964. It used the MVVS 5.6 rear intake engine. I'm going to use the Tono 5.6 from the same era and country, also rear intake. It's a neat looking airplane that completely embodies the eastern block stunt ships of the time. I never forgot a photo I saw of it as a kid in the American Modeller Annual of it flying in the European Criterium of Champions. The picture didn't explain the airplane and it wasn't until recently I was able to I.D. the thing and find plans.
Hi Dave and Wayne! Just message Steve Fitton about my Spacehound! Mind you, I used a ST .46 in mine for purposes you will see as you are building yours. Super thin wing, itty bitty tail feathers and a fuselage that looks like a majorly pregnant guppy. But, mine flies really nice, especially the round maneuvers! Something else to remember: Sirotkin ran the MVVS .35 on a 10-4 prop............ ever heard of high rpm, low pitch?? BTW: I have been searching to buy one of the 21 (!!) MVVS that were made for the team. Figure I can knock off a couple liquor stores up North to pay for it. I-95 makes for a good get away............
BIG Bear
RNMM/AMM
-
I noticed the 10-4 prop on the drawings. Obviously two strokin'. I'm going to try the Tono but I can drop in the Mac .40 without touching anything. Beyond that there are options with a little modifying. I might chicken out and just put an Enya .45 in. Then again I have a pair of Raduga 7s.. Was going in the Super Master with those but the Enyas could go there..
-
Hi Wayne. Yes the Space Hound was a Soviet era design by Yuri Sirotkin from the USSR in the early sixties and was flown at the World Champs I believe in 1964.
Doh! That was a brain fart on my part Dave, for some reason I had visualized the Sig "Spacewalker". n~
-
...
-
John thanks for posting the drawing. I couldn't make it happen. Wayne not too many would know the airplane. To be honest, the name doesn't seem to fit the vision of a Soviet champion stunt ship. Think I'd have re-named it!
-
I do recognize that one now, quite a funky looking bird it is.
Any color on that Spit yet?
-
Wayne the Spit has me frustrated. I finally got the silk pulled up fairly well. I then mixed some baby powder in NON TAUTENING clear and applied it. The silk all bagged out again and now will not pull tight again. Today since it's too windy to fly on my day off I'm going to strip it all off and recover with Plyspan if the hobby shop has enough. If not I might try the 60 year old silkspan in the kit. I think in the future with the silk I'll have to stay with tautening dope and no fillers all the way.
-
Did you forget the days when silk was always put on wet and pulled tight also while doping the edges. Also Butyrate Testors was my choice as Charley's Hobbby Shop had it in pints, quarts and gallons as well as the thinner. He also carried Aerogloss, but not in big quenities. For me it usually took about 5 coats of butyrate to get the silk sealed and it was always drum tight. I used a lot of colored silk during that time also. Trim colors were put on after the silk was sealed. Then one final coat of clear.
-
John I wet then doped the silk down. When covered and dry it was really nice with no wrinkles. Went to haties when doping. Perhaps the Certified doesn't shrink that much. Next silk job I'll try Sig Supercoat. It'll make a flap into a prop pretty quick. Just can't go back over with non-taut or your done. The Spit was getting weighty with all the clear I put on so it's better to peel the banana and start over. The Plyspan is the devil I know.
-
Back to bones and much lighter.
-
Silkspan
-
Silkspan
Joe if there was enough good stuff. Actually I like the Plyspan pretty well. WOW! My 4-6# just got here from Sig. Ordered on the website Sunday when they were closed, it arrived here Tuesday. Looks nice too!
-
Silkspan
I am too accident prone around the shop and car to use silkspan on a "good" model!
BIG Bear
RNMM/AMM
-
Must we keep sharp things away from you Bill? Lol! Well the Plyspan is on.
-
It looks great Dave, I have been following this thread since I have the Sterling and Umland Spitfires in my stash of kits. You are doing a fine job. If you guys want there is a movie about RJ Mitchell the designer of the Spit called the First of the few that you can watch at this link: https://archive.org/details/TheFirstOfTheFew
Juan
-
Thank you Juan!
-
Must we keep sharp things away from you Bill? Lol! Well the Plyspan is on.
Hi Dave,
It's not just sharp objects! LOL!! Things just reach out and grab my "good" models. If it's a profile or something, I don't have a problem........... But, I try to use Polyspan on the good ones now. It is much harder to put a hole in! ;D
The Spit looks great!
BIG Bear
RNMM/AMM
-
Save the silk for panties, polyspan is the only way to go. y1
-
Closing in now.
-
AWESOME build Dave! y1
Many thanks for sharing!
"Tight Lines!" H^^
Wes
-
Thank you Wes. I'll probably fly it right after the Nats. It's feeling pretty light- not much finish. Think I'll keep it that way.
-
Well the Spit is complete other than mounting the engine and tank. She's a little plain-Jane but I like it well enough. We should test fly it when I get back from the Nats.
-
Looks great Dave, and "plain Jane" is fine, but don't you at least need to add the red circle in the center of the insignias and the red to the flag on the fin?
That little bit would wake it up quite a bit. y1
-
Hi Wayne. The photos of the Aussie (or New Zealand ) Spit I saw on that book cover were just as I put them on here. I didn't do any research on it. Maybe I should buy the book!
I sort of think I remember reading something years ago about some ID confusion when the roundels came to the pacific and were confused with the Japanese meatballs. Maybe that's where this came from.
-
...Hey Dave, When the Royal Australian Air Force was formed on 31 March 1921, it adopted the existing red, white and blue Roundel of the Royal Air Force to identify the aircraft. However the red inner circle was removed during WW II, when an 11 Squadron Catalina was mistaken for a Japanese aircraft by a United States Navy Wildcat. Correct Roundel on your cool bird.
-
...Hey Dave, When the Royal Australian Air Force was formed on 31 March 1921, it adopted the existing red, white and blue Roundel of the Royal Air Force to identify the aircraft. However the red inner circle was removed during WW II, when an 11 Squadron Catalina was mistaken for a Japanese aircraft by a United States Navy Wildcat. Correct Roundel on your cool bird.
Bingo!
-
Hmm, I guess I didn't realize that you were doing an Aussie version Dave. I wonder era the simple blue and white insignia was used, I assume the red kangaroo was added to it later...which might still be a nice addition. ;D
-
...Hey wwwarbird, After the war the red inner circle was re-introduced, but on 2 July 1956 the Red Kangaroo "in motion" was chosen as the most popular center piece from a range of other options including the Southern Cross, a boomerang and a sprig of wattle. It has been displayed with pride, not only on aircraft, but on various promotional material since 1982.
-
I'd bet there were still a few Spits in service there in 1956. Could be some go the Kangaroo...that would be cool! I know some Spitfires were in service in third world countries into the 60s. I think Spain was using Spanish built ME 109s into the late 50s. I have a couple Veco Hurricane kits to build. Might look for interesting alternative paint schemes there. I did a Hurricane of my own design a few years ago as a sea hurricane. It looks pretty good in aqua camouflage. Pretty airplane but got too heavy to fly verticals very well.
-
Thanks for the info John, interesting stuff there.
Here's my two cents Dave, get some masks and add the kangaroos, it'll add a nice finishing touch. y1
-
I did a Google search and found one photo with the'roo' markings on a row of Spitfires. Most were like mine. Interesting how many were 'tropical' versions and how many had P40 style sharks mouth paint. Also found one in Japanese markings and one in Russian. I weighed the bird ready to go. 48 ounces. Better at a little less but we works with it.
-
A little trouble in paradise. When I went to mounting the spinner and prop on the Spit I found the shaft on the Stallion to be a little shorter than other engines. The backplate on my 2 1/2" Chinese spinner and standard Top Flight wood prop don't leave enough shaft for a washer or nut. Either I reset another engine or get an extension nut machined....hello? Mr. Lee?
-
Well I gave up on the Stallions. Three different engines couldn't get job done. When they did run they had no power. All would get hot and quit about half way into a flight. Converting the Spit to Red Head McCoy .35s. I have five of the 'good' ones from the first production run. I KNOW these will perform. What little I could tell the machine felt pretty good in the air. Didn't find any alignment or control issues. Did have about 1/4 ounce too much tip weight. I didn't make it adjustable so had to cut a hole and pluck it out. Should be ready to try again by the weekend.
Also found I created a problem with a 1/16" plywood spacer with sandpaper glued on used to space the spinner backplate away from the nose ring since it seemed to rub a little. It didn't compress perfectly and caused that big 2 1/2" aluminum spinner to run a little off-true which would foam the fuel when the tank got down below half full. I replaced that with a stainless washer which solved that. I had to chop the nose back about 1/4" to retrofit the McCoy so fixing that problem by giving myself a little more spinner clearance.
-
Always problems isn't it. When you see my new planes don't look too close. All the fits I had did not fit once I started to assemble the engines to the planes. Even had the bags marked that the engines and parts were in. But, these were built for fun and the Super Ringmaster was for reliving my first plane.
-
Hi Dave,
I like the looks of it and I'm glad there are no flying issues! IIRC, the original Sterling plans called for a Veco .35. That's what I put in mine, and when the rebuild gets done, it will still be in it. ;D I love both the Red Head McCoys and the Vecos. IMHO, the Veco is a touch stronger and I believe they will interchange.
BIG Bear
RNMM/AMM
-
Thanks Bill. I have a real strong Veco .35. Was thinking to save it for my Veco Hurricane but never thought about it for the Spit. If it does fit up I might check the engine out in the Spit before I build the Hurricane around it.
-
Hi Dave,
I have been saving my #1 Veco .35 for a replica of the model Bob took to the World Championships which is hanging in the AMA Museum. It is a T-Bird II but slightly different from the Veco kit. You should like that Veco. y1
BIG Bear
RNMM/AMM
-
Bill I've run mine just once on the stand but man it's got compression like a G21 Tigre. Would be nice to see if it holds up in the air before I commit an airframe. Have lots of other choices. I really like that Tbird in the museum. I admired again this last trip. It sure doesn't look it's age. Thought I had a pic of it but can't find it.
-
Plane looks great Dave. Like everyone else on this forum, I've always admired Spitfires. 8)
-
Bill I've run mine just once on the stand but man it's got compression like a G21 Tigre. Would be nice to see if it holds up in the air before I commit an airframe. Have lots of other choices. I really like that Tbird in the museum. I admired again this last trip. It sure doesn't look it's age. Thought I had a pic of it but can't find it.
Hi Dave,
Swap it for the McCoy that is on the Firecat. That's what I do on my Giant Stunt Master. They bolt right in on a profile. And, that's why I think the Veco is a touch stronger, having flown the model with both engines quite a bit.
BIG Bear
RNMM/AMM