first scale warbird
 

Hello everyone... Working on my Spitfire & I kinda would like to build the clipped wing version, but before I do, I'd like to make sure the low speed characteristics​ - will they be better? Also, I think I may try those VG' jobbies I read about in the model aviation magazine, February 17...VG (vortex generators) claim only a 1% reduction of top speed, now if these really work, that trade off is excellent, there's 2 different style, really noticable & not so much, the bummer is.. scale warbirds will look funky with those on there....& If I increased the thickness of the control surfaces (wing/stab/elevator) just a bit, don't want to make it look ghetto. Thanks for any input, here are a couple pics so car... Excuse the mess please -& the wing assemblies
The vg's are to increase stability & control at low speeds and enhance control authority,by directing/energizing the airflow over the control surfaces.

If you clip the wing, I would think that the low speed flight would get worse. You also have to consider how much more weight you are applying to the lift of the wing if you clip it. You are going to make your wing loading greater by clipping the wing. The usual thought process is the higher the wing loading the more speed you need. Good Luck, Dave

Do yourself a big favor and always remember this: First Time warbird flyers and Clipped Wings is never ever a good idea.

While its true vortice generators if done just right (good luck on figuring just right) may marginally improve roll response However that is not your problem with your RC model in first place. What is a very common and serious problem with many RC warbirds is high wingloading, especially as the fellows keep slapping on scale stuff and details. Well turns out that clipping wings only make that wing loading even worse never the other way around.

Now another effect of that heavy wing loading is it will demand greater piloting skills! That does not bode well for the first time warbird pilot.

John

Wow, thanks... I figured real world application here, does the clipped wing spit not perform better at low altitude & speed, - elliptical - high altitude/speed...? Does not apply to rc ? & The vg's... I suppose you need to work with that for best effects..? Dunno...Read in a magazine, & other in military aircraft.... For what it's worth, I enjoy building, flying is a bonus.. landing is terribly difficult for me yet, things happen too fast for me yet, but I'll get it...It's a blast for me

You would be better off looking at the extended wing version of the Spitfire. Keep it light and add a little washout.

A Focke Wulf TA 152 would be an even better choice.

That would figure, because I have a ta-152 1/5 scale I'm doing next, then my Midwest Messerschmitt, then TF p51 & a Corsair... So I've got some fun times ahead. Other than that, I really enjoy modifng mechanical eguipment to get the best performance from it that's all, I used to drag race, build my entire car from ground up- do not know of many people who do that type of thing anymore, I destroyed my back in the early 90's & am partial disabled, all my go fast goodies had to go, so back into rc'n.... Should have never left as it is friggin' awesome now, possibilities are endless- now if I could just land a bit better- lol thank you guys for your input, I for sure need it, even tho I research what I'm about to do, I still ask about it...& Experience does not mislead you.
Bob

Bob Your talking about high and low altitude performance but think about it. Most never ever fly at much more than a variation in elevation of perhaps a few thousand feet, heck some folks never fly anywhere else but their home field. This is not quite like a full scale craft where there are very large changes in altitude every flight

I have done a number of warbirds for pylon racing and have experimented with clipping the wings of some and in every case some may have netted a slight gain in speed but in every case they became far more of a challenge to land.

So when you say "landing is terribly difficult for me" reducing wing area, increasing wing loading and increasing approach and landing speeds by clipping wings is a poor choice.

I like j.dunckers suggestion of a TA-152.

John:)

Ok, gotcha' that's kinda what I was asking, I don't think I'll ever be high altitude, so I was asking if clipped wing would have been better for low alt. easier control ect... still learning, I'm a X-drag racer guys.
But here's a pic of my progress, had to revamp my work bench tho.

Looks to be progressing nicely:cool:

Somebody once said that building these things is a hobby, flying them is a sport. That has always appealed to me. You don't necessarily have to enjoy one to enjoy the other. But it is a real blessing to enjoy both. Watching an airplane that you spent months agonizing over in the building process lift off the ground and soar off into the wild blue yonder is uniquely rewarding. Your build seems to be going fine; hopefully one day soon you can enjoy seeing it fly.

Hi!
As most of the others have already said: Clipped wing will be worse because it will increase the wing loading which in turn makes the plane more prone to stall and landings will be more difficult.
A tip! Build it light! A light plane will always be more forgiving in flight. Its also vital that you build the wing with slight wash-out in the outer portion of the wing, this will increase the likely hood of surviving the first flights.
But...before you even try flying the spit, prepare yourself by flying more aerobatic planes first so you get used to faster more maneuverable planes then just a high winged trainer.

Well, thank you, & good Lord guys, I literally took a crash course (lol) in flying with this Cessna (Corvalis 350 foam jobbie) it's from flyzone, & it's awesome, crashed the hell outta it already, repaired & back in the air I go....Fun, but repitious side wind keeps crashing me, things happen too fast yet

Hey guys, little more progress, I think I'm going to re-do the tail feathers, I do not like the slab side finish when it's to have a canvas over frame look, am I wrong?..& I'm going to take a couple different pics, sorry fellas' I only have a cracked cell phone to take pics with. And I'm about to build my cable system for rudder.. - do I also make 1 for the elevator, or use music wire?.. & as for lightening the bulkheads / formers....Leave @1/4" from attach point, from lightening hole, to attachment point? Correct? & Sorry if I'm confusing guys.

Spitfires shouldn't have a canvas over frame look. They were all aluminum. For the most realistic finish, you'd need to fully sheet the plane so none of the ribs or formers show.

Just a warning, some of the Spits had fabric covered control surfaces, some did not. If you're trying to model a specific mark of the Spit, you need to find out which way the control surfaces were made before covering them

Oh good lord, see I've got a handful of military aircraft books, - complete breakdown schematic, & a decent amount of WW2 fighter (osprey) books...& Ya there's quite a few models of it.i was talking about the defined panel lines of the tail feathers, I've seen many styles on how to achieve that, I want a strong,light, & as scale look as possible, it's a mk9-- super marine pica kit, old,old... Directions are giving me a rough time,...Even though I dry fit, & read, re-read, and read again, I still manage to assemble something wrong, & in the booklet drawing it's right, blueprint, different story,... I know the cg is also been revised, oh ya...This has maple motor mounts which extend from (almost cockpit former) about 3.5" from cowl, to cockpit... Unsure if going electric/gas/nitro...Appears to balance the fuse out when installed, if not, way tail heavy, & I lightened it, ... Good Lord

You make this sound like a bad thing. Just remember, when you're doing a scale model, you have to do your research. I'm presently building several scale unlimited hydroplanes and, even though a couple are basically the same boat, the differences in the paint schemes alone is almost enough to drive you to drink. The picture on the left is the boat as it appeared in it's second year of racing. The shot in the center is the same boat racing in 1978 while the one on the right is how it looked, less wing and engine, after it's last race in 1988. I'm building the left and center versions, would you like to help?;)
Attachment 2216030http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/atta...1&d=1495281483http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/atta...1&d=1495281483

Hi Mopar, If this is your first scale build I would suggest that you not fret over things like the rudder looking slab sided. Your build photos look like you are doing fine. Unless you are flying with some scale competition guys you are already going to have something that is more scale than 99% of the planes that you will run across at the field. Some of the old kits assume a skill set that isn't as common today and some of the building difficulties have been resolved over the last 40 years. Maple motor mounts aren't that bad they just aren't adjustable. You may have to use shims or trim the mount to get your motor just where you want it. You will probably need to be able to bolt a motor in place and then form the nose to match. If you check the warbird or kit building threads you may be able to find somebodies build. You mentioned the Midwest Messerschmidtt, If it is the .40 size version it is a nice flying plane. It isn't particularly scale but it is a straightforward build and you can add some detail without weighing it down too much.

Mgnostic, hello- I've come to realize I have a touch of ocd....So I have a problem with leaving things well enough alone, with that getting into the open, I like to enhance​ stuff I do, attempt at doing the very best to my ability, & learn from there?? I chose to do the spit first "because" I feel I can handle it, just some of the directions, unlabeled kit parts!! & Umm I kinda know where what gos & why & what it does, love building the washout into the wing assembly, can actually see the twist in it to the root, ect...Built chassis for stock car, drag cars, did motor cross, built v-8's, & 2-strokes (dirt bikes) always Built the plastic models, first balsa plane was a guillows fw190 a6 ...Been hooked ever since, BAD... Like ocd'ed out on buying kits off eBay.....Lol,...Paid too much for a couple I think, as I already feel I could scratch build & only improve....Also draw, air brush, play guitar, carpell tunnel has taken so much, back injury, taken so much, & I can scuddle around on the floor, ya that's my work shop, blocked up 4 x 8 sheet of drywall, seems to work well so far, I like alot of the set ups other fellas' have, & the tips/tech/all-out everyone's skills....I feel at home reading thru these threads, the 50+ one makes me laugh & cry @ same time,...Fond memories there guys,..Thank you,. & Thank you to all that have taken the time to steer me right, I respect what I'm being told....Like I said, I feel "really" at home reading "some" of the threads..
Bob

Mgnostic, hello- I've come to realize I have a touch of ocd....So I have a problem with leaving things well enough alone, with that getting into the open, I like to enhance​ stuff I do, attempt at doing the very best to my ability, & learn from there?? I chose to do the spit first "because" I feel I can handle it, just some of the directions, unlabeled kit parts!! & Umm I kinda know where what gos & why & what it does, love building the washout into the wing assembly, can actually see the twist in it to the root, ect...Built chassis for stock car, drag cars, did motor cross, built v-8's, & 2-strokes (dirt bikes) always Built the plastic models, first balsa plane was a guillows fw190 a6 ...Been hooked ever since, BAD... Like ocd'ed out on buying kits off eBay.....Lol,...Paid too much for a couple I think, as I already feel I could scratch build & only improve....Also draw, air brush, play guitar, carpell tunnel has taken so much, back injury, taken so much, & I can scuddle around on the floor, ya that's my work shop, blocked up 4 x 8 sheet of drywall, seems to work well so far, I like alot of the set ups other fellas' have, & the tips/tech/all-out everyone's skills....I feel at home reading thru these threads, the 50+ one makes me laugh & cry @ same time,...Fond memories there guys,..Thank you,. & Thank you to all that have taken the time to steer me right, I respect what I'm being told....Like I said, I feel "really" at home reading "some" of the threads..
Bob
I'm trying to save the bf109 & fw190 d9 next, usually gets better as I go,... About the maple mounts, they're about 12-17" long, if I go electric, do I want to remove that heavy rail road tie & modify for electric, or build so either may be used? I think I know the fuselage & wings ect... I'm treating this as though it's my race car, chassis very important, absorbs engine harmonics & has psi per sq. inch, (wing load, right?) & & My incidence are going to be at 0° - other builds I've seen on this , the elevator incidence had been changed? Different model make I suppose, quite a few very nice build threads on these spits' & I probably forgot something, sorry for rambling guys
I just really enjoy being able to do something again, it's been a couple years of , omg - what do I do?

Sorry, DBL. Post - wanted to add something & no idea how to erase a post yet... Sorry

You can't "erase" a post. What you can do is click on the edit tab at the bottom, then either hilight what you don't want and hit delete on your keyboard or just go to the first letter and hold down delete until what you don't want is gone. Many will just put three or four dots or just say double post and leave it at that

That plane probably won't fly well with a 0-0-0 incidence setup, if that's what you meant. Stick with the designer's recommendation on that.

I hear ya on the back injuries and OCD traits. A lot of the activities that you mention make good use of OCD traits, you just have to know when to say done. As to the maple motor mounts. They are usually seen in designs that predate prefabbed motor mounts. Or at least their designers did. With gas engines the beams tie the fuselage together. As you note it transmits torque and absorbs vibration. A lot of newer models have some sort of box structure within the interior of the fuselage that serves the same purpose, tying the firewall to the rest of the fuselage. With square box fuselages the designer often just uses triangle stock to reinforce the firewall joint. If you do away with the beam mounts you should also take a close look at the firewall. At least with the few that I have built, beam mount models tend to have a thinner firewall. If you are going to hang the motor off of the firewall you had better make sure that it is at least 1/4 inch aircraft ply and that it ties to the sides of the fuselage in some manner.
I just went and took a look at an online copy of the plans. If you are going to go with a glow fuel motor I would stick with the beam mounts. The down side is that inverted motors can be a bit of a pain. If you go with gasoline of electric then you can eliminate the beams but you will need the stronger firewall. One benefit of eliminating the beam is that it would make room for a nice big LiPo pack with a hatch on the top of the fuselage. If you are converting to electric be sure to allow for airflow across the controller and the battery. Basically you would replace F3 with 1/4 ply. You might also want to laminate the fuselage sides with some 1/64 or 1/32 ply from the firewall back to the wing mounts if you are going to remove the beams and use a fuel engine. Put it on the insides and trim F-3, F-4 and F-5 accordingly.
One of the nice thing about building is that if you are willing to take the inherent risk of changing a known design, you can change up a plane to modernize it or make it a reflection of some design idea that you have. Based on your previous hobbies/activities you probably have the skills to think through and carry out design changes but like any experiment there is a chance it won't pan out. All that said, if it was me I would keep the beams and hang a four stoke on the nose. Dump the wooden pushrods and go with nyrods and put an aileron servo in each of the wings. I would also use captive nuts instead of wood screws for mounting the engine.

Moparbob498

Welcome, I have read thruogh this thread and have come to the conclusion you are in the fast lane of disaster. Sorry but to be honest with you , you would be best served with more of a trainer plane than what you are about to do.

The older kits were built for less power than we have at our dispoal now, and the wings were designed to match , from what I have read your understanding of aerodynamics is lacking. Please don't be offended by my words My intent is to save you greif.
Warbirds is the road to crashes for new comers (ask me how I know) unless you have a successful pilot at your disposal don't try to fly that spit it won't last.
no reason you can't build it but you mentioned modifying it without the knowledge to do it properly. to be quite honest your understanding is exactly opposite your intent. the older scale kits were not for those with limlted knowledge. or flying skills.

If what I have said offends you please accept my deepest apologies but I find being diplomatic on these sites spells disaster for many new comers. Don't try to out guess the designer of the kits unless you have the true ................... I've said enough
and I don't want to offend. good luck, I wish you only the best.