Sure Flight
05-10-2003 | 06:38 AM
#1
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (16)
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Clinton,
UT
Sure Flight
I came across a Sure Flight styrofoam ARF. It is a .40 sized P-40 Warhawk. Are these kits worth the work? Do they fly well? If so, would covering with 3/4 oz. cloth and epoxy finishing resin be the best idea? I have built several planes but I have no experience with styrofoam or ARFs. I do like P-40 Warhawks and the price was right. Thanks in advance, Cliff
05-10-2003 | 08:19 AM
#2
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Lincoln,
CA
Sure Flight
Cliff --
In 1979 I set out to see just how good I could get a Sure Flight Spitfire kit to look. This was also an all-foam model. At the time, there was a company that made fuel proof, flat, scale colors for painting foam. The name of the company escapes me now. I also put the Robart strut covers on it, and fake strut doors on the gear legs. Found a "blank" veco spinner so I could cut it for a 3-blade prop (the spinner was also highly polished). Even made a non-scale cockpit complete with pilot. At the time, everyone in my club thought it looked really good, "for a foamie". The attached photo is of that finished model.
While it looked good, that finish didn't do anything to "toughen up" the foam. Practically everytime you even looked at the plane, you came away with more dents, dings and hangar rash. It seems, in this day and age, someone would have come up with a product that you could apply to foam that would toughen it up, and would be fuel proof. I've got a Sure Flight Waco Cabin biplane (also foam) that I've delayed building just for this reason.
Maybe the lightest fiberglass cloth would be the way to go. In my nearly 50 years of modeling, I've never fiberglassed anything but would like to learn those skills. I always thought fiberglassing a small model would add too much weight, but I'm hearing others say if you use the light weight cloth, it's not much different than say, a Koverall finish.
One more thing about that Sure Flight Spitfire - it was a real pig when it came to flying. It loved to snap roll if you slowed it down to much (like when trying to land).
In 1979 I set out to see just how good I could get a Sure Flight Spitfire kit to look. This was also an all-foam model. At the time, there was a company that made fuel proof, flat, scale colors for painting foam. The name of the company escapes me now. I also put the Robart strut covers on it, and fake strut doors on the gear legs. Found a "blank" veco spinner so I could cut it for a 3-blade prop (the spinner was also highly polished). Even made a non-scale cockpit complete with pilot. At the time, everyone in my club thought it looked really good, "for a foamie". The attached photo is of that finished model.
While it looked good, that finish didn't do anything to "toughen up" the foam. Practically everytime you even looked at the plane, you came away with more dents, dings and hangar rash. It seems, in this day and age, someone would have come up with a product that you could apply to foam that would toughen it up, and would be fuel proof. I've got a Sure Flight Waco Cabin biplane (also foam) that I've delayed building just for this reason.
Maybe the lightest fiberglass cloth would be the way to go. In my nearly 50 years of modeling, I've never fiberglassed anything but would like to learn those skills. I always thought fiberglassing a small model would add too much weight, but I'm hearing others say if you use the light weight cloth, it's not much different than say, a Koverall finish.
One more thing about that Sure Flight Spitfire - it was a real pig when it came to flying. It loved to snap roll if you slowed it down to much (like when trying to land).
05-10-2003 | 01:08 PM
#3
Sure Flight
I had the older spit also. I had a O.S. FP .40 in it. I covered it with Hobby Shack Cheap cote film covering and then spray painted the camo on. It flew really good.
Yes the glassing would toughen up the skin. If you go to the sure flight web site they talk about fininishing them with glass, latex paint.
I am going to be getting the 59 inch span Cub, P-40 and make them electric. The lighter they are the better they fly.
Dru.
Yes the glassing would toughen up the skin. If you go to the sure flight web site they talk about fininishing them with glass, latex paint.
I am going to be getting the 59 inch span Cub, P-40 and make them electric. The lighter they are the better they fly.
Dru.
05-10-2003 | 01:10 PM
#4
My Feedback: (7)
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 448
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Bridgewater,
NJ
Sure Flight
Cliff,
I am building the 109 right now. Mine is glassed with 3/4oz glass and WB Poly. If you handle it hard, it will ding and dent still but I like the ease of water based Poly. It doesnt bother me to much , the little dings and dents here and there as in a warbird like the full scale are pretty rough themselves. I must say though, I didnt use the sureflight wing, Mine didnt align right and had an odd shape to it. It almost looked like a Hellcat wing, I guess tomake it more stable. I had a wing from a crashed plane that I rebuilt to fit the 109, its built up with foam bays. I also didnt use the canopy as it was cheesy looking to me, so I scratchbuilt my own. I didnt like the way my first cowlcame out, so I ordered a spare and am currently cutting it up to be 1. more scale looking, 2. cutout around the engine a little closer and easy to remove for access. As soon as I get the 2 cowl halves done, I am glassing them, and maybe one day will actually make a mold for future cowls. I engineered some Hobbico Retracts to retract outward in a scale fashion, that and the canopy took the longest time to do. I also added plastic robostruts for looks and wheel pants and built up the wheel rim detail as well as ribbed the wheels themselves. Also added rivets and panel lines. I have a lot of time in this little guy so far, but the end result will be worth to me. Here is a pic so far... Getting ready for the paint shop...
Warren
I am building the 109 right now. Mine is glassed with 3/4oz glass and WB Poly. If you handle it hard, it will ding and dent still but I like the ease of water based Poly. It doesnt bother me to much , the little dings and dents here and there as in a warbird like the full scale are pretty rough themselves. I must say though, I didnt use the sureflight wing, Mine didnt align right and had an odd shape to it. It almost looked like a Hellcat wing, I guess tomake it more stable. I had a wing from a crashed plane that I rebuilt to fit the 109, its built up with foam bays. I also didnt use the canopy as it was cheesy looking to me, so I scratchbuilt my own. I didnt like the way my first cowlcame out, so I ordered a spare and am currently cutting it up to be 1. more scale looking, 2. cutout around the engine a little closer and easy to remove for access. As soon as I get the 2 cowl halves done, I am glassing them, and maybe one day will actually make a mold for future cowls. I engineered some Hobbico Retracts to retract outward in a scale fashion, that and the canopy took the longest time to do. I also added plastic robostruts for looks and wheel pants and built up the wheel rim detail as well as ribbed the wheels themselves. Also added rivets and panel lines. I have a lot of time in this little guy so far, but the end result will be worth to me. Here is a pic so far... Getting ready for the paint shop...
Warren
05-10-2003 | 03:01 PM
#5
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Lincoln,
CA
Sure Flight
Dru --
I'm sorta surprised to hear someone say their Spit flew so well. I had a ST .40 in mine and, even though it balanced right on the money, it was a squirrelly son-of-a-gun. Always wondered if it was a design flaw because all the parts were molded from foam so the incidences, etc. were already factory set. Could be they made changes in later production runs. I think the one I had was one of the first ones (as I recall, the Spit kit had just come out). Sure Flight had such a good reputation for ARF foam kits, I thought this one would be great, too. Their Piper Cub and Cessna were just great. The Spit was too much of a handfull and I wound up trading it to someone that liked things dicey when they flew - after I repaired the top of the vertical stab, which was ground off when it snap rolled onto the runway on it's first landing! As I recall, it made one snap roll on final about 30 feet high, but recovered. Then it snapped again into the runway from about 10 feet! You just could not slow it down at all. Too much for me!
I found a couple more pics. Here's one of the better half holding it.
I'm sorta surprised to hear someone say their Spit flew so well. I had a ST .40 in mine and, even though it balanced right on the money, it was a squirrelly son-of-a-gun. Always wondered if it was a design flaw because all the parts were molded from foam so the incidences, etc. were already factory set. Could be they made changes in later production runs. I think the one I had was one of the first ones (as I recall, the Spit kit had just come out). Sure Flight had such a good reputation for ARF foam kits, I thought this one would be great, too. Their Piper Cub and Cessna were just great. The Spit was too much of a handfull and I wound up trading it to someone that liked things dicey when they flew - after I repaired the top of the vertical stab, which was ground off when it snap rolled onto the runway on it's first landing! As I recall, it made one snap roll on final about 30 feet high, but recovered. Then it snapped again into the runway from about 10 feet! You just could not slow it down at all. Too much for me!
I found a couple more pics. Here's one of the better half holding it.
05-10-2003 | 05:17 PM
#6
Senior Member
My Feedback: (2)
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Mt. Morris, MI
Sure Flight
I've got the 1/2a Pete, the Baby Bipe, Spitfire, Sportfire (OOP) and the Waco. I haven't built any of them yet, as my flying abilities aren't up to it yet, but I too would be interested in hearing what folks think of the flying qualities of these planes.
05-11-2003 | 01:54 AM
#7
Sure Flight
I know that mine flew WAY better then the other two in the club. I had the C of G in the forward location suggested and it was lighter then the others. If you slowed it down in a turn, you had better have clean shorts handy because it would do the most awesome snap spins around. I read some where way back when the the full scale spit would drop a wing in the turn if you were not ready for it. I just landed a litle hotter then my other sport planes and did not have any real problems flying it. It was a handfull on the ground at first due to it being my second tail dragger and first war bird.
Dru.
Dru.
