bwillhite

My Feedback: (3)

I found this plan on the internet tonight, while looking for a Dynaflite Spitfire (getting VERY hard to find!). The Brian Taylor spit is about the same size as the Dynaflite.

I have never built from plans. I have built the following, Great Planes RV-4, Top-Flite AT-6 Texan, Midwest Extra 300XS and currently building a Dynaflite Chipmunk. Do I have the skills to build a Brian Taylor Spitfire? Are the parts and laser-cut wood from Bob Holman a good deal? Retracts? Would a Saito 150/180 work in this plane? I am going to Monokote it, not fiberglass.

Sorry for all the questions and thanks for your time

bwillhite

paperairplanes

My Feedback: (10)

I figure, if you can avoid gluing your fingers together, you can build anything.... Anyways, the only thing I really find diffeent between building from a kit and building from plans, is that building from plans, you have to cut out wood. Building from a kit, you already have the wood cut out. Although, most plans dont have detailed instructions, this leaves a little figuring out to do for yourself. Besides, after 1 or 2 kits, do you really follow instructions to a T? I always have to put in my way of building, because I always think theres a better way. Catch my drift? As for laser cut parts, do you have a scroll saw? Are you good with it? If so, and you want to say I made this, do it your self. If not, pay the cash and get the parts cut. If you want to go to extremes, build the plane, use it as a plug, and make molds. Crash it once and dont worry about it because you have molds for hundreds of planes to be made.

ProfLooney

Brians planes are very scale and fairly easy to build. I have these plans and those of his ME 109. though I do not like them my reasons are not due to his design but more that his building techniques do not fit my needs for enlarging the plans.

He uses simple box construction for the fuse and he has a lot of isometric views drawn on his plans along with several cross sections. I dont believe you would have any problem building them.

Joe

Chad Veich

My Feedback: (60)

As mentioned above, Taylor plans are very scale as Brian is a competitor in the UK with his designs. However, his plans are very well thought out and easy to follow. If you just want a sport scale airplane there is much that can be simplified such as the control surface hinging, simpflification or deletion of the flaps, etc. If you are planning of fixed gear then you will be on your own as Taylor does not show this option. The Holman laser cut parts are fantastic and there is a glass fuse and other glass accessories available from a third party if that interests you. I have two of these waiting on the shelf and can't wait to get started. Check out this web site for more: http://www.vicrc.com/spitfire.htm

Chad Veich

My Feedback: (60)

PS- Built light the 1.5 or 1.8 Saito would be a good choice. I think Taylor shows a 1.5 Laser or similar on the plan. The airplane is designed for Unitracts retracts from the UK but others can be made to work. All the accessories available from Holman are top notch.

CoosBayLumber

My Feedback: (1)

You may not be using as much Monocoat as thought. Most of the B.T. designs use 3/32 balsa planked wings, and fuselages.

It also will not scream through the air, as it was built to fly proportionately to the real one.


Wm.

bwillhite

My Feedback: (3)

Well, sounds like I can do it! Now I can't wait to get the Chippie finished-up! After that I need to build a 1/3 scale Sig SpaceWalker for a friend, then on to the Spitfire!!!

I am just planning on a sports scale level of detail. I had read about changing the control surface linkage and hinging, should be no problem. I changed my TF AT-6 to have a servo in each wing, I understand that the BF Spitfire shows one aielron servo with bell cranks?

I have a scroll saw, band saw, drill press and disk/belt sander. I won't say I was good with them, but the only way to get good is to pratice!!! I will try cutting the parts by hand, balsa is cheap, so I can make lots of mistakes!! LOL If that doesn't work, it is nice to know that the Bob Holman parts are of high quality.

I have always been interested in scratch building. It seems that only way to get the planes in the sizes that I like to build and fly. All the kits are either too small or too big. I will try to build the Spitfire light, I haven't had a problem with that on my other kits. Plus I believe that covering it with Monokote will help keep the weight down.

Thanks for all the replies, got to go order the plans!!!

bwillhite

bwillhite

My Feedback: (3)

I have come up with a couple more questions about the Brian Taylor Spitfire plans:

Are the plans in standard or metric measure measurements?

Could I use the Robat gear for the Dynaflite Spitefire, #630DSPF?

Thanks again!

JGrc

My Feedback: (29)

bwhillite:
Brian's plans are in inches. In regards to retracts try to use 97 degree which will only require minor changes in the mount and has the right angle. I built 2 BT Spits so far and now I'm building a third for a friend. After you build one of these, the Dynaflite will look like a toy to you.
One more thing: instead of monokoke you can use Solartex which goes around curves very good and can be painted. A bird like this deserves a nice paint job.
JG
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/warbirdscale/

bwillhite

My Feedback: (3)

I have been looking on the internet and can't find Solartex. Sounds like a good covering for my Chipmunk and the Spitfire.

Please post an URL

Thanks

bwillhite

JGrc

My Feedback: (29)

Try: http://www.balsausa.com

fw190

My Feedback: (37)

Gears are now available locally from Shindin. A friend of mine has a set (I will order mine soon). The struts are scale (size and apperance), the retract angle is correct and its very well designed.
Strong enough for a 35lb+ warbird!!

I will post some pics of the gear asap! on my website

Vic

shindin

My Feedback: (5)

Chad,
JG sent me the tailwheel retract area drawing, i will be doing the tailwheel for the 83" spit as well, will be just like the plans, with the addition of a shock-absorbing spring at the top per JG's mods to the drawing..... i just need to find out what wheel would be best for it....
L

JGrc

My Feedback: (29)

Shindin:
I'm glad you received the plans. I asked Scott to send you a sample of the tail retract as well. I use a Dubro threaded wheel in mine, I believe 1.75".
JG

shindin

My Feedback: (5)

Sounds good, if you get a hold of Scott, have him email me, i need to send him an FW190 gear.....
thanks!!
Lenny

LA7flier

My Feedback: (1)

Here's a question for you and one I have really puzzled over. I'm building a 1/5th scale Spitfire (88 inch wing) for the Masters blown from a MkI 3 view. The tail wheel on the Spit is fully castoring with a built in shock absorber. I can't figure out how I am going to duplicate the shock absorbing function with a steerable function (can't have fully castoring on a model) without causing the full tailwheel arm to swing...any ideas?

Merlin65

LA7flier,

Don't forget, the full size Spit made use of the brakes for turning on the ground as well as rudder.

A better bet is to stick to Taylor's original steerable design. A low bounce tyre (tire in the US?) will do the job.

I have seen a DB scale Spit that uses a tyre with most of the tread buffed off to produce a lighter wheel as well as providing better damping (Shock absorbtion)
--
Merlin

Chad Veich

My Feedback: (60)

LA7, if you figure something really good out please let us know. I read an article by Tom Hunt regarding his electric Spitfire and he says that a fully castoring tailwheel works just fine. He steers with rudder and bursts of power and says he figures he could manipulate an obstacle course on pavement. I've not been brave enough to try it on a giant scale Spit! Of course, he is swinging a near scale diameter three blader which may or may not be helping. You could make your MkI into the one off MkIII and put a retract tailwheel on it!

shindin

My Feedback: (5)

JGrc added a fairly clever & simple shock absorbing spring to the Taylor unit, the shock-absorbing mechanism won't be visable outside the airplane, but the tailwheel will be steerable & have shock absorption (loading adjustable by changing springs...).... email JG and see if he'll send you a scan, as it's his drawing.... i will be putting it on the tailwheels i make unless some one requests that i don't put it on theirs.... currently, it looks like the unit will run about $60, including the wheel, if i can find a good one for it....... we're looking at the dubro, although i'm trying to find out if there is something better looking, or something that i can replace the plastic hub on with an alum one.....
lenny sarbin
"shindin"

Forgues Research

My Feedback: (7)

If you have the time, building from plans is exilarating to say the least, when everything comes together and you finally fly it, it doesn't get anybetter. And after building all you said, you shouldn't have any problems.

shindin

My Feedback: (5)

LA7... not sure i understand the problem, sounds like you want to put the shock absorbing part down just above the yoke, and not at the top? even that should be simple..... if you have a picture or drawing of what you're trying to do, maybe i can help.....

or are you talking about the non-retracting tailwheel?


lenny "shindin" sarbin

LA7flier

My Feedback: (1)

I will let you know if I can figure it out. Interesting about the electric Spit but I have seen too many scale birds with a tailwheel that has the steering mechanism break causing the tailwheel to become a full castoring one and there is no way one could safely try to take off. Besides, in the Masters, a straight takeoff is mandatory if you have any hope of scoring well. As for the retractable tailwheel...been there and done that. Hate them. They never work well and are the Achilles Heel IMHO. I always plan to build a plane that has a fixed tailwheel or where I can document that the retract mechanism was disconnected and the tailwheel was locked into the down position...like the LA-7

Chad Veich

My Feedback: (60)

LA7, I agree with your conclusions regarding retractable tailwheels. In the case of the Spit there seems to be no "lesser evil" however. What we need is someone to develop differential braking that could be connected to the rudder channel!

LA7flier

My Feedback: (1)

Talking about the non-retracting tailwheel...As you know, there is a tailwheel strut that extends from the bottom of the fuselage and has the fully castoring tailwheel attached at the end. The strut is attached to a shock absorber inside the fuselage at the other end...the problem is that in order to steer the tailwheel, I have to cause the entire tailwheel strut to swing side to side....this is not scale as the strut was fixed and the tailwheel castored on the full size Spit. Therein lies the dilema.

LA7flier

My Feedback: (1)

There you go! That's what is really needed. As it is, I will probably end up causing the entire tailwheel strut to swing while taxiing. Hopefully, the judges won't nail me too hard on flight realism