Guillows Spitfire park flyer FINISHED!!!!!!!!!!!!

cribbs74 wrote:Ok. I fixed the elevator per Kim's suggestion works great! thanks Kim! The fix is totally transparent.

I have another question though. How do I determine CG? Also one more issue, I think the term is "Wing Loading" as I loaded her up with battery servos etc and gave it a toss in the back yard in the soft grass. It flew like a rock like there is not enough lift in the wing to keep it airborne. Keep in mind this was designed to be rubber band powered. Perhaps the air speed was not fast enough i didn't throw it hard. It
didn't even attempt to glide it kinda just went a few feet and sank, no stall or nosedive just sank. Looked like when you throw a plastic toy airplane.

There is a CG mark on the build plans basically it points to a spot just behind the leading edge of the wing but it has another CG mark ahead of the wing for gas tether flying.

I am wondering if this plane is just too small for 3.15 oz of weight. I still need to add the receiver.

Thanks for any insight provided.

The rearmost CG is the one you want, but I feel that you have serious problems with wing loading, basically the higher the wing loading the higher the airspeed needed to sustain flight, if your Spit has the glide angle of a housebrick even without the receiver, it is going to have to fly REALLY fast to stay in the air, I'm afraid your observation "I am wondering if this plane is just too small for 3.15 oz of weight." may prove to be correct.

Ivanhoe wrote:

cribbs74 wrote:Ok. I fixed the elevator per Kim's suggestion works great! thanks Kim! The fix is totally transparent.

I have another question though. How do I determine CG? Also one more issue, I think the term is "Wing Loading" as I loaded her up with battery servos etc and gave it a toss in the back yard in the soft grass. It flew like a rock like there is not enough lift in the wing to keep it airborne. Keep in mind this was designed to be rubber band powered. Perhaps the air speed was not fast enough i didn't throw it hard. It
didn't even attempt to glide it kinda just went a few feet and sank, no stall or nosedive just sank. Looked like when you throw a plastic toy airplane.

There is a CG mark on the build plans basically it points to a spot just behind the leading edge of the wing but it has another CG mark ahead of the wing for gas tether flying.

I am wondering if this plane is just too small for 3.15 oz of weight. I still need to add the receiver.

Thanks for any insight provided.

The rearmost CG is the one you want, but I feel that you have serious problems with wing loading, basically the higher the wing loading the higher the airspeed needed to sustain flight, if your Spit has the glide angle of a housebrick even without the receiver, it is going to have to fly REALLY fast to stay in the air, I'm afraid your observation "I am wondering if this plane is just too small for 3.15 oz of weight." may prove to be correct.

Thanks Ivanhoe,

I hope your wrong but I am thinking the same thing. Airspeed may overcome the weight however, how much speed will I have to maintain to actually land the thing....... Scary

cribbs74 wrote:

Ivanhoe wrote:

cribbs74 wrote:Ok. I fixed the elevator per Kim's suggestion works great! thanks Kim! The fix is totally transparent.

I have another question though. How do I determine CG? Also one more issue, I think the term is "Wing Loading" as I loaded her up with battery servos etc and gave it a toss in the back yard in the soft grass. It flew like a rock like there is not enough lift in the wing to keep it airborne. Keep in mind this was designed to be rubber band powered. Perhaps the air speed was not fast enough i didn't throw it hard. It
didn't even attempt to glide it kinda just went a few feet and sank, no stall or nosedive just sank. Looked like when you throw a plastic toy airplane.

There is a CG mark on the build plans basically it points to a spot just behind the leading edge of the wing but it has another CG mark ahead of the wing for gas tether flying.

I am wondering if this plane is just too small for 3.15 oz of weight. I still need to add the receiver.

Thanks for any insight provided.

The rearmost CG is the one you want, but I feel that you have serious problems with wing loading, basically the higher the wing loading the higher the airspeed needed to sustain flight, if your Spit has the glide angle of a housebrick even without the receiver, it is going to have to fly REALLY fast to stay in the air, I'm afraid your observation "I am wondering if this plane is just too small for 3.15 oz of weight." may prove to be correct.

Thanks Ivanhoe,

I hope your wrong but I am thinking the same thing. Airspeed may overcome the weight however, how much speed will I have to maintain to actually land the thing....... Scary

Well, I hope I'm wrong too, there's nothing worse than spending time and money on building a model then finding it doesn't fly! (Been there, done that, in the early days!)
The only proof is, try it!

Wilf

Ron:

You have hit upon the very problem that I anticapted when going for the larger-sized Guillow's Spit'.

The Spitfire was designed as a agile high-speed fighter with proportions according and not as a "lazy floater" sport plane. The Guillow's representations are no less in model form.

Are you considering painting on the camo pattern over the Monokote that you applied? As has been noted here Monokote was probably not the best choice when total flying weight was taken into consideration. You plane will unquestionably fly but how well remains to be seen.

Again I appreciate the wisdom that you are imparting for the build of my Spit'.

SuperDave wrote:Ron:

You have hit upon the very problem that I anticapted when going for the larger-sized Guillow's Spit'.

The Spitfire was designed as a agile high-speed fighter with proportions according and not as a "lazy floater" sport plane. The Guillow's representations are no less in model form.

Are you considering painting on the camo pattern over the Monokote that you applied? As has been noted here Monokote was probably not the best choice when total flying weight was taken into consideration. You plane will unquestionably fly but how well remains to be seen.

Again I appreciate the wisdom that you are imparting for the build of my Spit'.

SuperDave,

Yes, I do plan on painting on the camo. Monokote may not have been the best choice I agree although, the amount actually used probably amounts to 2 8.5x11 sheets. Maybe even less. I don't see that as having that much effect on overall weight. I may very well be wrong. I wish I had weighed it before covering so I had a figure to go by. At any rate I am glad you can learn from my experiences (mistakes) since you will be building the 24" version you probably will not have the same issues with weight as I do. I assume you are going to go with .020 power?

Stay tuned........ And as always I appreciate you taking the time to answer my posts.

RON:

At this point my power is YTBD (yet to be determined) though I'm leaning toward more rather than less. The Spit' and the P-51 Mustangs were tremendously successful designs against their adversaries like ME-109's and and Folke-Wolfes. Put in that perspective one can help but consider why? I believe that I have a pretty good idea why they excelled. (They were "hot rods" of the sky in the European campaign of WWII)

I'll complete all of components, assemble and weigh them before making a final decision on power. It could be a PeeWee .020 ranging up to a .061 G-Mark RC and certainly no more than that

Total flight weight will be the "decider".

SuperDave wrote:RON:

At this point my power is YTBD (yet to be determined) though I'm leaning toward more rather than less. The Spit' and the P-51 Mustangs were tremendously successful designs against their adversaries like ME-109's and Zero's. Put in that perspective one can help but consider why? I believe that I have a pretty good idea why they excelled. (They were "hot rods" of the sky in the European campaign of WWII)

I'll complete all of components, assemble and weigh them before making a final decision on power. It could be a PeeWee .020 ranging up to a .061 G-Mark RC and certainly no more than that

Total flight weight will be the "decider".

Maybe a tee dee .020 with throttle ring would be good.
BUt i think the best engine would be the GMark .03 RC engine.

[quote="SuperDave"]RON:

The Spit' and the P-51 Mustangs were tremendously successful designs against their adversaries like ME-109's and and Folke-Wolfes. Put in that perspective one can help but consider why?
quote]

Why? Rolls Royce Merlins, that's why!

The P51 with it's original Alison was a fairly average fighter, fitted with the Merlin it became possibly the best long-range fighter of WW2
(Incidently, the FW190 was actually superior to both allied fighters until they were uprated)

Wilf

Oh the purr of a Merlin V12 is a sound to behold!
Guys now put them in airboats.
SO they are still great engines.

"I have another question though. How do I determine CG? Also one more issue, I think the term is "Wing Loading" as I loaded her up with battery servos etc and gave it a toss in the back yard in the soft grass. It flew like a rock like there is not enough lift in the wing to keep it airborne. Keep in mind this was designed to be rubber band powered. Perhaps the air speed was not fast enough i didn't throw it hard. It
didn't even attempt to glide it kinda just went a few feet and sank, no stall or nosedive just sank. Looked like when you throw a plastic toy airplane.

There is a CG mark on the build plans basically it points to a spot just behind the leading edge of the wing but it has another CG mark ahead of the wing for gas tether flying."

Hey Ron,

It's been my experience that hand-gliding a small low-winger is very tricky, and doesn't reveal much about how it's gonna actually fly. It IS heavily loaded, but may still surprise you with a reasonable approach to landing after it HAS true flying speed. My Littlest Stick felt VERY heavy (never weighed it), but flew well, and had a controllable albeit fast approach on landing.

Because of it's elliptical wing, it's perceived to be difficult to balance, but I'd still go with the 1/3rd of wing chord, as seen from the side view, and test fly it over the proverbial "tall grass". After the first flight, you can adjust the C.G. according to how it flys, rather than by marks on a plan.

One BIG thing about an airplane this size is that any warps or misalignment will have a TON of authority, so try your best to make sure the whole airframe is dead-on true. Sit it on some kind of stand, at eye-level, back off about 20 feet and sight down the wing and elevator to see how they relate. ANY warp in the wing will make it'self powerfully known!

It's important to remember that, unlike it's namesake this little Spitfire has a flat-bottom-high-lift airfoil, so it may fly much better than appearances suggest.

You guys are gonna make me tear into my Focke Wulf of the same scale, and make me put an airplane where my talk is !

Ron I would go with the further forward of the two.Or somewhere in the middle simply because "A nose heavy plane flies badly,,,,, A tail heavy plane flies once".

nitroairplane wrote:Ron I would go with the further forward of the two.Or somewhere in the middle simply because "A nose heavy plane flies badly,,,,, A tail heavy plane flies once".

I'd agree, except that (I think) the most forward CG mark on the plans for this model are for uncontrolled "Tether Flying" on a single string. Still, as you put it, nose heavy is better. If Ron can just get that first flight in with minimal trauma, he can go from there in moving the CG around.

I've got a FW-190 of the smae scale at home, nad I'll check it out, but believe that is true about the deal with tether flying.

ALSO...forgot this...check your LATERAL (wing tip to wing tip) balance. It doesn't always come out equal and CAN make a difference!

Yeah i hate flying tail heavy planes and I think because of that i will suck at 3D.

nitroairplane wrote:Oh the purr of a Merlin V12 is a sound to behold!
Guys now put them in airboats.
SO they are still great engines.

There's no mistaking the sound of a Merlin, once heard, never forgotten! And if you've ever had a Lancaster fly over you at zero feet, as I have, the sound of four of them is even more memorable!

Agh the Lancaster that is most likely my favourite aircraft of all time joint with the piper cub.
There aren't many real ones around and still flying however there are several replicas out there.imagine a mine one powered by 4 throttled cox engines.
And a real bomb hatch!

Due to the nature of my job. I have had the good fortune of hearing a lot of different aircraft. I have the hearing loss to prove it!!! After nearly 20 years of listening to the USAF finest I have come to the conclusion that nothing sounds better than a prop driven plane. Jet aircraft while impressive don't do it for me.

Right now I will be happy to hear 90 seconds of full on .010 and not 5 seconds......thud.......silence. Thanks for all the suggestions and insight. Now I need to study up and put the suggestions into practice.

Jets never really did it for me.
When I was younger we used I fantasise about planes ad my friends were dreaming about harriers and phantoms and what ever and there I was thinking about: spitfires,mustangs and cubs!

nitroairplane wrote:Agh the Lancaster that is most likely my favourite aircraft of all time joint with the piper cub.
There aren't many real ones around and still flying however there are several replicas out there.imagine a mine one powered by 4 throttled cox engines.
And a real bomb hatch!

I once helped to push a Lanc out of it's hanger at RAF Scampton for the pilot to run mag-drop tests on all 4 engines, then sat on the tail (with others) while he ran each engine up to full power, unforgettable! That Lanc had flown back to the UK from Australia, and had a long range fuel tank installed in the bomb bay. After I was with it, it was flown up to Blackpool to be in an aviation museum. Some years later the museum went bust, and that Lanc was allowed to stand outside and rot away. Finally it was broken up and it's engines went to the RAF's Battle of Britain Flight to keep their Lanc flying, I nearly wept when I heard what had happened to it.

Kim wrote:
"I have another question though. How do I determine CG? Also one more issue, I think the term is "Wing Loading" as I loaded her up with battery servos etc and gave it a toss in the back yard in the soft grass. It flew like a rock like there is not enough lift in the wing to keep it airborne. Keep in mind this was designed to be rubber band powered. Perhaps the air speed was not fast enough i didn't throw it hard. It
didn't even attempt to glide it kinda just went a few feet and sank, no stall or nosedive just sank. Looked like when you throw a plastic toy airplane.

There is a CG mark on the build plans basically it points to a spot just behind the leading edge of the wing but it has another CG mark ahead of the wing for gas tether flying."

Hey Ron,

It's been my experience that hand-gliding a small low-winger is very tricky, and doesn't reveal much about how it's gonna actually fly. It IS heavily loaded, but may still surprise you with a reasonable approach to landing after it HAS true flying speed. My Littlest Stick felt VERY heavy (never weighed it), but flew well, and had a controllable albeit fast approach on landing.

Because of it's elliptical wing, it's perceived to be difficult to balance, but I'd still go with the 1/3rd of wing chord, as seen from the side view, and test fly it over the proverbial "tall grass". After the first flight, you can adjust the C.G. according to how it flys, rather than by marks on a plan.

One BIG thing about an airplane this size is that any warps or misalignment will have a TON of authority, so try your best to make sure the whole airframe is dead-on true. Sit it on some kind of stand, at eye-level, back off about 20 feet and sight down the wing and elevator to see how they relate. ANY warp in the wing will make it'self powerfully known!

It's important to remember that, unlike it's namesake this little Spitfire has a flat-bottom-high-lift airfoil, so it may fly much better than appearances suggest.

You guys are gonna make me tear into my Focke Wulf of the same scale, and make me put an airplane where my talk is !

Kim,

Would that be 1/3 of the root cord?

Kim,
Go on then I must see this little Fokker!

[quote="cribbs74"]

Kim wrote:

Would that be 1/3 of the root cord?

Yes, 1/3 or thereabouts of the root chord

Wilf

[quote="Ivanhoe"]

cribbs74 wrote:

Kim wrote:

Would that be 1/3 of the root cord?

Yes, 1/3 or thereabouts of the root chord

Wilf

Yep...as seen from the side...'bout a third of the way back from the Leading Edge.

nitroairplane wrote:Kim,
Go on then I must see this little Fokker!

Very Well Then, Sir !!!

I shall take up your gauntlet...and by vow that, by this evening's sunset... the Ambroid shall flow like an orange river !!!!

Let it be known far and wide that I have entered the Frey of heavily loaded, Guillows Scale fighters, and shall Christen my 190 as "Baby Wolf"...germanbeez, please provide a translated and cool title in your native tongue !!

German Kim