stunthanger.com
General control line discussion => Open Forum => Topic started by: builditright on March 01, 2011, 01:06:09 PM
-
This is just a survey to see if anyone would be interested in a stretched out and converted to a Seafire stunter.
It would be converted from my Sterling Spitfire kit that John Miller originally drew the plans for.
I realize it is not to scale so we can call it semi-scale / scale-like / scale looking, etc.. (call it how you like)
It would have equal panel wings, longer nose and tail moments and the canopy has been moved back slightly and the rudder changed to
simulate the Seafire.
While no longer Classic or NOS. 30 eligible, it can be used in modern CLPA and can be powered with an electric motor or nitro eng.
I am thinking of changing the cowl setup and haven't addressed that yet, so please don't hold me to that yet. Comments appreciated.
(http://www.clstunt.com/htdocs/dc/user_files/38971.jpg)
(http://www.clstunt.com/htdocs/dc/user_files/38972.jpg)
-
NEVA NUFF SPITS' LOVE THOSE ELIPTICAL WING PLATFORMS H^^
-
That's pretty neat...makes me want to work on my old Spitfire some. I like it H^^
-
Verry nice but what about the Edge 540 ?
-
Verry nice but what about the Edge 540 ?
Hi Joe,
We're waiting on the weather for maiden flights to take place, so whatcha think about the Seafire? any interest.
-
Walter,
What would the suggested motor range be for the Seafire?
James
-
Walter,
What would the suggested motor range be for the Seafire?
James
same as the Sterling Spitfire... .29-.40
-
Hi Walter,
It's really a hard question as to whether or not "I" would think there is enough interest for a kit like that. Don't get me wrong, I think it would be a beautiful model. For the "competitive class of flier" it would be very limited, but then a lot of guys might want to build it for "non" competition if than is of any concern. Good luck, either way!
Bill
-
Could be a cool design and model, but realisically I wouldn't buy one only because my build list is too long already. However, if I was to go after one, I would prefer your original Sterling design.
-
I like it and will order one.
-
Realistically, I am unlikely to buy one.
That said, the "stretched" fuselage gets too skinny, esthetically.
I like the muscular look of a Seafire FR47 fuselage, whatever size and shape the wing would be.
-
Woooo Hoooo... if it is a warbird in the .29-.40 range.. count me in... I kinda like the stretched out look.. warbird stunt.. I like it... #^
Chris
-
Very nice looking plane Walter. I loved your Spitfire and flew it many times and I am sure this one will be just as high quality as the Spitfire was. You produce beautiful kits..
Mike
-
Wow. Dennis and I talked about a lot of these mods after he built his Sterling model. The "stocker" flies well but the longer moments and equal wings would make it more "up to date" in it's flight characteristics. Cool piece.... Spitfires are always pretty.
-
Wow. Dennis and I talked about a lot of these mods after he built his Sterling model. The "stocker" flies well but the longer moments and equal wings would make it more "up to date" in it's flight characteristics. Cool piece.... Spitfires are always pretty.
Dennis suggested all the mods that went into this.
-
Looks good Walter. You might consider enlarging the stab elevator area to about 25% of the wing area. It seems a little on the small side, and making it a bit larger should allow a stable platform with a more aft CG. H^^
-
Dennis suggested all the mods that went into this.
Doh... I need t talk to him more often.
-
Hi Walter,
I replied to your PM, but haven't heard back. Let me know.
Bill
-
Dennis suggested all the mods that went into this.
Never let a short story do when a long story can be told:
First some background. My Dad built a Sterling Spifire back in the early 1960's. It suffered from a flexible wing, flexible control system and a K&B Greenhead that usually ran away. Dad and my brothers flew it quite a bit while they were just starting out in stunt but the bird was not remembered fondly! I was 8-9 years old when they flew it, I just remember I LOVED that airplane!
Based on my memory, a couple years ago, I got a Sterling Spit off EBAY. The parts were already punched out, the box was pretty bad, so it was obviously a builder and not a collecter. I made an invisible change in the wing to make it stiffer but otherwise it is stock, used all the kit wood except the motor mounts. Meanwhile Dad had some great luck with stock Greenheads fitted with mufflers - seemed to settle them down. In short I built the Spit powered it with a Greenhead 35 - just the one on the kit box and just like Dad's! It is not especially light (48 oz) but it is stiff and has a good control system in it. I thought it would be fun to revisit the early 1960's.
The shock occurred when the airplane SURPASSED all expectations. The engine runs PERFECT (no exageration) and the airplane flies far better than Dad's did and far better than any of us expected - this despite way too thin of an airfoil, too much wing assymetry and way too short tail - and who in the heck ever used a Greenhead for stunt anyway? Because of all the wing offset it is prone to hinging, but that is not really a problem. The real revelation occurred one blustery day, in a turbulent wind that grounded the "modern" airplanes, the Spit handled the wind and turbulence with hardly a wiggle! I believe that it is BECAUSE of the thin elliptical wing. It is a little prone to wind-up but can be flown to minimize that - just like we would have done back when people actually know how to fly in the wind. Now with electric power I believe I can neutralize any remaining wind-up issues and make it just a little better yet.
The idea of an "improved/modernized" Spitfire has been rattling around my brain ever since I flew my Sterling. As you know Walter Umland recently came out with his version of the Sterling Spitfire. The Spit is a product of the late 1950's with then-popular design features, I believe Walter and his designer John Miller simplified the construction some. I recently shared the story above with Walter, had anticipated getting a short kit of one of his Spits and doing the deed. However, Walter took those ideas plus a few of his own and redesigned the Sterling Spit into the Seafire presented here. He is thus able to offer a full laser cut "Walter Umland class" full kit of the Seafire as well as the original Sterling Spitfire. I expect the lengthened fuselage and equal span wing will improve the performance and aesthetics while keeping some of those features that made the original model so special.
BTW John M made a reasonable suggestion to enlarge the stab - I do not think it is necessary and aesthetically it would be a disaster. The stock airplane flies fine with the stock 1/2" thick stab, on the much longer longer tail it should be even better. No one ever told Al Rabe he need a 25% stab on his Mustangs! (OK maybe someone did but he wisely did not listen!) The shape of the stock stab is right and it looks good with that wing.
BTW in another first, Walter has been designing in detail changes to try to accommodate the electric installation. I am anticipating using the Brodak Super Clown power system which includes a front mounted motor and a thin/wide/long 3 cell 3300 mah battery. The alternative to that would be one of the 4 cell motors which can use a short/squat battery that would have room to move fore/aft for fine tuning balance.
I am excited about this project and THANK Walter for taking it on...
-
The Spitfire made it's first flight on this day, 5th of March 1936. Just a bit of useless info ;D. Your Spitfire looks very good, the canopy could do with being a little bit larger though! I built Jack Sheeks Spitfire way back in '68, never really got it sorted out, first time out someone stood on the tailplane, next flight, something gave out in the controls, and that was the end of that!
Cheers
-
The Spitfire made it's first flight on this day, 5th of March 1936.
Spitfire prototype pictures from
http://battleofbritain.devhub.com/blog/494447-reginald-j-mitchells-spitfire/
http://www.circlecity.co.uk/wartime/aircraft/prototype.php
More pictures at http://www.k5054.com/
-
Hi Walter,
Being that I'm a huge fan of WW II warbirds, this design definitely rates a two thumbs up. I know that things may have to tweeked here and there, but the overall look of Supermarines' design is nice anyway you slice it.
The engine size is perfect since I have extras kicking around anyway.
I don't fly in any type of competition, so I don't have to worry doesn't fit into a certain catagory. Count me in !
-
Walter,
Seafire is a gorgeous airplane. The cowl shape is too small to enclose a motor in the down position. Changing the shape to accommodate a motor would change proportions for the worse. May I recommend you design this model to be electric or sidewinder IC.
Did I mention, the lines of a Spit/Sea fire family are absolutely gorgeous. Please keep the proportions as close to original as possible.
-
Sign me up for one of these beauties..
-
Sign me up also. I would also like to see a side mount engine or electric.
-
Walter I really love this one, especially if I can mount the engine side winder and the wings have a little dihedral to them . Sign me up for one! Gordon Tarbell, Carmichael CA
-
Walter I really love this one, especially if I can mount the engine side winder and the wings have a little dihedral to them . Sign me up for one! Gordon Tarbell, Carmichael CA
I'm not sure why having the engine cylinder sticking out the outboard side of the fuselage, hanging there in plain sight, would be preferable over tucking it inverted under the nose. Depending on the engine, only a small portion of the cylinder and head would be exposed when mounted inverted. Much more would be exposed side mounted. In addition, one would have to make serious changes to allow the use of standard hard wood motor mounts. Also, mounting, and access for the fuel tank would be complicated.
One could use an RC style bulkhead mount though the nose would not have the stregnth, and stiffness gained from running the hard wood motor mounts to their locating above the wing.
Making the design able to be electrified, would not really take a lot of extra effort, unless you wanted the very best electric version possible. Doing that would require some major changes in the fiselage design, and construction.
Adding dihedral would probably be a good thing. That would allow the leadouts to be on the vertical CG.
Perhaps the kit could be split into the following components.
Wing and stab kit, with gear.
Fuselage kit for wet power.
Fuselage kit for electric power.
Mix and match what you want.
I personally agree that the canopy looks too small. Just a little bit, but if I was building it I'd make that change.
Looks like a good'n Walter.
-
Depending on the engine, only a small portion of the cylinder and head would be exposed when mounted inverted.
Even less if you go for a Seafire 47 style nose.
Electric would be perfect for the slim nose. Front mounted if you want to keep the beam mounts in the nose design.
-
Here's a little eye candy for you Seafire fans. I just might be persuaded for a kit.
-
After seeing Dennis' picture, talk about fueling the fire......too hot!
-
I like the idea of the larger canopy and would move it forward slightly. No dihedral though. It solves a almost non existent vertical cg issue and makes the plane look like ass going around corners. I think dihedral is visually distracting on a stunter. On insides it appears to swoop and on outsides it appears to stumble then flop. YUCK....
-
We designed and built some wonderful aeroplanes here in the UK, ONCE! >:( Having just retired the last truly British designed, and built aircraft, the Harrier, in favour of a US design, whose name eludes me!
Cheers
-
I like the idea of the larger canopy and would move it forward slightly. No dihedral though. It solves a almost non existent vertical cg issue and makes the plane look like ass going around corners. I think dihedral is visually distracting on a stunter. On insides it appears to swoop and on outsides it appears to stumble then flop. YUCK....
Better hope Mr Al Rabe doesn't see this. I have watched him fly with dihedralled planes and look how many contests he has won. S?P
-
Better hope Mr Al Rabe doesn't see this. I have watched him fly with dihedralled planes and look how many contests he has won. S?P
Hi Doc. Won't discuss individual designs or personalities. I was verbalizing something that I see when I watch a stunter flying around square corners. The wing is a dominant visual cue normal to the corner and works as an axis for the turn. The dihedral causes a visual "flow" either from the root to the tips or tips to root. It just looks busy and un-natural. Distracting.......... ymmv.....
-
I have to agree, when watching Brian Dykes huge Stuka doing outside loops, you seemed to be waiting for it to roll out! Obviously it never did, it flew very well, but just looked awkward in some manoeuvres!
Cheers
-
If anyone is interested...
please visit my "Seafire kits" post in the vendors section
http://stunthanger.com/smf/index.php?topic=21733.0
-
You might be able to modify the kit into a Spit. This one is a mark 5
Floyd
-
Very nice Floyd.
Allen Brickhaus
-
There was a Seafire Mk.XVII eye candy video posted on Stuka Stunt.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_6bETg5Zy
Somebody thought Seafire 17 has a Merlin engine...
How to get the kit:
http://www.builtrightflyright.com/New_Web_Pgs/kits/seafire/seafire.htm
-
Spitfire prototype pictures from
http://battleofbritain.devhub.com/blog/494447-reginald-j-mitchells-spitfire/
Only the Brits would design a massive chord 2-blade prop like that...Geeez!
-
Hello guys H^^,
Thought you might like to take a look al this AWESOME Seafire built by a friend of mine, Hernán Hartinez, here in Argentina. It features a unique take apart system and an unbelievable finish. I wish you could see it in person.
Absolutely first class craftsmanship, believe me.
Besides, it flies like heaven...
OS 70 4S.
Enjoy!
Claudio.
-
...another batch...
-
...a couple more...
-
He even built two of these, here is his second plane (unfortunately this is the only photo I have of this beauty)
-
Only the Brits would design a massive chord 2-blade prop like that...Geeez!
You prefer 4-blade props?
-
Claudio, those planes are top notch. H^^
-
Indeed they are, John. 8)