dhable:

Nice Spit! Your Monokote job looks nice, and the plane looks authentic with the paint added. You did much the same thing I did with my P-47, monokote with paint added and then sealed with clear. The only problem I had was after a couple years and a few hot summers some bubbles and blisters appeared. Maybe their not supposed to last that long!

I noticed that you did not follow TF's directions for the blisters, but followed the proper treatment instead! I was going to do the same. The MK9 with a "C" wing only had a blister over the cannon placements, not one further out on the wing. I do not know why TF directs you to place the second blister on the wing top. There is a smaller blister underneath the wing on the MK9c, but is smaller than the blister TF provides. I have not decided to put it on the wing bottom yet. Did you put a blister on the wing underneath?

Cal

Cal,
Maybe l'm missing something here. ln an earlier post #15 you
said you had flaps on your P47 but seldom used them and in fact
flew better without them. l thought flaps allowed you to slow the
plane just prior to landing while adding stability to avoid stall.
Please expand on this and how you flew better without them,
are they then only for scale looks on the TF kits?
Dave

Answers to a couple of questions about my Spit:

I forgot to mention that I use "balsa rite" to cover an entire airplane before I iron on the Monokote. I iron it directly over the entire airplane; (I don't just seal the edges then shrink it down with a heat gun.) I seldom have a bubble problem, since the balsa rite "welds" the covering to the surface. (That's not to say "never" have a problem, just "seldom" have a problem.)

I use very little filler, since the covering will lift over filler after awhile. Instead of filler, I "build up" holes and fairings, etc. with scrap balsa, which holds the balsa rite, hence the covering better.

With respect to the wing blisters, Top Flite sometimes gets a little askew with their "details". I chucked the huge oversized blisters in favor of the samller ones, since they looked closer to the pictures I was using in the couple books I had. I did make a mistake with the cannon fairings (made from the lower barrels of 2 large ball point pens) in that I placed them outboard of the .303 machine gun covers, instead of inboard, where they belong. After I realized it, it was too late.

The wing sheeting was very fragile. I had numerous patches all over the place. The Monokote covers them up well, and lends some strength too.

I absolutely agree with the post that any WWII fighter would look better flying with the gear up. I used retracts for a couple years, but just got really tired of the work to re-align them after each flight off our grass field. Life's too short for any self-induced grief. Basically, I'm a "sport flyer", but like to build and fly WWII fighters. This is my compromise.

Adding a picture of my P-39, done in much the same manner as the Spit. Only difference is that the P-39 is all flat Monokote, no paint (except for the ABS parts). Flies like a trainer...only a little faster.

Ratherbflyin, I am not speaking for Cal but I have had a fair amount of experience with flaps on TF warbirds (not the Spit however). Most of them tend to be a bit heavy so, when you drop your nose in the landing approach, they can pick up considerable speed and float forever in the flair. To avoid this problem, a longer, flatter, slower approach can be used but this can lead to a "dragging it in on the prop" scenario which increases the chance of a stall Which usually will be VERY abrupt with a wingtip drop.
With flaps, you can drop the nose without nearly as much speed increase, keep some power on (better control), fly down to about 6" or so above the ground, chop the throttle and watch it sit down. If you have mis judged the speed and are a little fast, the flaps scrub it off quickly. I fly a circling descent path from the downwind leg, continuously nose down ( much less chance of a stall) to the flair. It works out well for me and besides, it is the way the big boys at Oshkosh do it. :-)

Regarding the plaps, I did not use them much in my P-47 because I found out I could land this plane in much smoother and easier without them. However, my P-47 was light, under 8 lbs. It would slow down very nicely to a slow speed before stalling. A heavy airplane would be different. I used them on sloooow fly bys more than during landing.

I found out the benefits of flaps just were not needed here. I could walk the plane in, and rollout was not long. With the flaps, the landings were not as stable (pitch changes, different technique, requires more throttle control, must not get tooo slow). A heavier or larger warbird would be a whole different ballgame! The same applies to my FW190. I also fly off of a large paved runway, which may make a difference. I have the room for a little rollout if I land faster than necessary.

I have nothing against flaps, they are required in my book for a larger or heavier warbird. I would not even consider flying my Yellow Aircraft Zero with out them. However, 60 sized on down planes may (just depends) benefit from the reduced weight more than the flaps. Your choice. As a rule, I probably would even build flaps into my 60 sized warbirds if they were noticed from the top (not split flaps) just for the looks and effect.

Cal