facthunter Posted August 13, 2016 Share Posted August 13, 2016 The elliptical wing is a misplaced concept. It doesn't have to be that shape but certain lift characteristics have to exhibit that aim ideally in the minds of some designers of the period. Same as the laminar flow airfoil that was popularised, but made the planes more tricky to fly than necessary at the time. The mustang is a pretty rugged performer . much better undercarriage, practical plane. I haven't heard any one, though who flew the spitfire who didn't like the way it flew, and I flew with plenty who flew then. Whew! that's a mouthful. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted August 13, 2016 Author Share Posted August 13, 2016 The elliptical wing is a misplaced concept. It doesn't have to be that shape but certain lift characteristics have to exhibit that aim ideally in the minds of some designers of the period. Same as the laminar flow airfoil that was popularised, but made the planes more tricky to fly than necessary at the time. The mustang is a pretty rugged performer . much better undercarriage, practical plane. I haven't heard any one, though who flew the spitfire who didn't like the way it flew, and I flew with plenty who flew then. Whew! that's a mouthful. Nev I'm not putting down the Mustang in any way, it's a beautiful aircraft. And I agree that Reginald Mitchell was smoking something funny when he put the u/c legs in the wrong spot and folded them out instead of in. (Mind you I can see why). There's a few beautiful WWII aircraft. In the twins the Mosquito, P38 Lightning, F7 Tigercat. In the singles the Spit tops the list (for me), the P51D Mustang, the P47 Thunderbolt, F4U Corsair. Even the older ones like Gloster Gladiator and my favourite biplane, the Boeing Stearman (there's another candidate for homebuilt, a scaled-down Stearman with Rotec radial). I know they're all Allied aircraft, the German planes are a bit angular for me. Don't mind the Focke-Wulf FW190 but the tail always seemed a bit small. The Dornier Pfeil gets a guernsey for pure weirdness. There's a few nice Russian, Japanese and Italian planes too, but none of them out for me like the ones listed above. As you say though everything I've read and heard from Spitfire pilots is that they love the way it flew. I'm hoping a 70-75% scale would fly nicely too. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted August 13, 2016 Share Posted August 13, 2016 I'd go a bit larger scale. The rudder will need to be bigger and the dorsal fin is a good idea. The original Mustang didn't have it neither did the original F27 Fokker. The Spitfire would look terrible with it, but it has to work or you bend it. The Stearman is a basic trainer in a country where fuel is cheap. A Bucker Jungmeister may be a better machine to model a replica on. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacesailor Posted August 13, 2016 Share Posted August 13, 2016 I would think "The simplest & cheapest build" would be more chance to get to a "finished product" and flyable. Also double check the specifications against the bureaucracy of whichever ( but it doesn't work anyway as it can be obsolete before flyable) Look at the "Hummel Ultra-Cruiser" looks ok on paper!. Also good follow up & parts. spacesailor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pylon500 Posted August 13, 2016 Share Posted August 13, 2016 You need to be careful with some of these 'scaled warbirds'. As a sideline, I looked into what people wanted, SPITFIRE ! was the usual answer, so Sullivan supplied. Almost immediately they cried, 'Can you make it a two seater?!' Idiots, I thought to myself, surprised they didn't want tricycle undercarriage!but that's the way it went; Two seat Sullivan Spitfires, Two seat Titan Mustangs, Two seat Flying Legends Hurricane, and so on. I got to thinking, if they want two seat warbirds, build warbird trainers! I started tossing up between the Chipmunk, and the Ryan STM. Then the company at Bankstown I worked for, got to restore a Ryan! (Here's where my first sentence comes in....) I quickly found out that I, at only six foot, could not fit in the front seat of the Ryan, and could barely fit in the back!! I think a good scale Ryan STM would be about 110%! I then started looking at the AT-6 Harvard, as we worked on them as well, and it actually scaled nicely. Initially drawn to have a 912 up front, the Rotec fitted as well... Not long after I started some drawings, the Flying Legends Tucano appeared on the scene. Inspired by Bryan Gabriel, I looked into a small single seat scaled PC-9, with a 582 up front. Since them I've had a few people interested in the PC-9, but a bit bigger, as a two seater. The scribbles continue... 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted August 13, 2016 Author Share Posted August 13, 2016 SPITFIRE ! was the usual answer, so Sullivan supplied.Almost immediately they cried, 'Can you make it a two seater?!' I would never want a second seat in the Spitfire. When... IF... I ever build this it'll be a pure indulgence for me to strap on and fly around with just enough room for both me and a silly grin. As far as the sizing goes, the cockpit will be tailored to my size. In the original the seat was reasonably high (plus the pilot sat on his parachute) and the VERY long motor had an 85 gallon fuel tank stuck behind it, so I think there's scope to remodel the seating position and controls even at 75% in order to fit my 6'1"/95kg frame. I'd go a bit larger scale. The rudder will need to be bigger and the dorsal fin is a good idea. The Mark 9 came out with 2 types of rudder - the standard (rounded top) one or a larger "broad chord" rudder which is substantially larger and has the pointier top (see below). I think using the broad chord rudder and actually enlarging it a couple of percent would assist with the characteristics. Of course if I do end up using the contra-rotating electric engine, I wouldn't need a boot full of rudder on takeoff anyway... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skippydiesel Posted August 25, 2016 Share Posted August 25, 2016 Am I the only player who appreciates the beauty & incredible performance of the DH Hornet ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nomadpete Posted August 25, 2016 Share Posted August 25, 2016 Marty, When the time comes, I think you'll be too busy flying the CH701 to think about starting a scratch built ANYTHING...... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted August 25, 2016 Share Posted August 25, 2016 I'm not putting down the Mustang in any way, it's a beautiful aircraft. And I agree that Reginald Mitchell was smoking something funny when he put the u/c legs in the wrong spot and folded them out instead of in. (Mind you I can see why).There's a few beautiful WWII aircraft. In the twins the Mosquito, P38 Lightning, F7 Tigercat. In the singles the Spit tops the list (for me), the P51D Mustang, the P47 Thunderbolt, F4U Corsair. Even the older ones like Gloster Gladiator and my favourite biplane, the Boeing Stearman (there's another candidate for homebuilt, a scaled-down Stearman with Rotec radial). I know they're all Allied aircraft, the German planes are a bit angular for me. Don't mind the Focke-Wulf FW190 but the tail always seemed a bit small. The Dornier Pfeil gets a guernsey for pure weirdness. There's a few nice Russian, Japanese and Italian planes too, but none of them out for me like the ones listed above. As you say though everything I've read and heard from Spitfire pilots is that they love the way it flew. I'm hoping a 70-75% scale would fly nicely too. You left out the F4U, looks the best by far..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted August 25, 2016 Author Share Posted August 25, 2016 You left out the F4U, looks the best by far.....[ATTACH=full]45350[/ATTACH] Er, no I didn't... But I take your (admittedly lovely) F4U and raise you this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted August 25, 2016 Share Posted August 25, 2016 Sorry, must've glanced over it....I guess the beauty is in the eye of the beerholder. The Spit is Ok, but lacks the powerful, yet curvy lines of the F4U. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted August 25, 2016 Author Share Posted August 25, 2016 Sorry, must've glanced over it....I guess the beauty is in the eye of the beerholder. The Spit is Ok, but lacks the powerful, yet curvy lines of the F4U. And the more beers... Vive l'difference... you have the F4U, I'll have the Spit, and we'll both be very happy men. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted August 25, 2016 Share Posted August 25, 2016 I started building one years ago, but some other aircraft got in the way. It remains in the shed awaiting. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted August 26, 2016 Share Posted August 26, 2016 You guys really go for the simple design's, don't you? I like Doug's comments about scale. When you scale down little problems inherent in a design become big ones. Reynold's numbers again. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted August 26, 2016 Share Posted August 26, 2016 You guys really go for the simple design's, don't you? I like Doug's comments about scale. When you scale down little problems inherent in a design become big ones. Reynold's numbers again. Nev It doesn't have be exact scale...the F4U would be instantly recognisable as long as it's similar. In any case, the original has rather large wings (low wing loading), and a huge rudder, so should all translate well. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted August 26, 2016 Share Posted August 26, 2016 True, both good basics, but a gull wing? Hard to build and hard to get in the plane. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted August 26, 2016 Share Posted August 26, 2016 Yes, a bit fiddly to build, but I've wanted one since I was about 6, so I want to make it happen. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted August 26, 2016 Share Posted August 26, 2016 That's OK. Doing what you are enthusiastic about has a naturally high motivational aspect. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted August 26, 2016 Share Posted August 26, 2016 the poor man's hellcat 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted August 26, 2016 Author Share Posted August 26, 2016 That's a fantastic shirt. Wonder if they make them for men? But seriously he's done a good job on that plane. Looks and sounds great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted August 26, 2016 Share Posted August 26, 2016 Looks like an SU-31 side on. I really thought it may have been a simpler/cheaper solution to put longer landing gear on it than go for an electric CS prop. Nice though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmccarthy Posted August 26, 2016 Share Posted August 26, 2016 He could have raised the prop by putting cranked Corsair wings on it:rofl: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now