Just starting a TF Gold Edition Spifire and would like to see any pics and hear comments on this kit, building, flying etc. l've been
told the wing sheeting is very fragile so you should fiberglass and
paint, but then the weight becomes an issue. l am going with a
Saito 91, robart retracts and flaps. What a great hobby!!

I built one for a friend, and it was fun.
the model will look great after you put the wing fairing.
all TF 1/7 scale kits have fragil wing sheeting.
yes you need to glass it and dont worry too much about the extra weight.

Im in the same situation.......starting the TF spit.
I've been convinced that fiberglass is the only way to go.
I have considered the Saito 100, but have been thinking of the RCV 120 due to ease of cowl fit and I have been looking for a reason to try the new style motor.

Jeff

Started the Spit as well. I have noticed that the die cut fin ribs are a little longer than the plans show. This changes the angle of the leading edge of the fin as depicted on the plans. I am just starting the fuse so I can get a better perspective of how the fin should look. Has anyone else experienced the fin difference?

Just ran across this thread, and decided to chip in. I am building a TF Spit as well, and have it framed up and am getting into the tedious mechanical hookup stage, minor details, and then will be ready for the glass and paint. See the pic for my Spit in bare bones.

I completed the TF FW190 last winter (pics on Wulfman's site), and flew it all summer. What a joy to fly for a warbird! I hope the Spit flies as well. They should look good together in the pits.

I did not have any real problems building the Spit, errors in the manual and all. Most is common sence and thinking things through. Then again, this is my 4th warbird. in the last three years.

Looks great RCnutKC! I got my Spitfire kit yesterday for Christmas and I can't wait to start it. I've been reading as much as I can find about the various fiberglassing techniques and now I'm looking into the various methods of building it with retracts. This will be only my third build so I've got a lot to learn. I'm a little shocked at the complete cost of the Robart pneumatic retracts recommended in the instructions, are there any other options that won't require too much experience to install correctly?

Dan

Hi Dan:

Good luck building your Spit! If you haven't done so, there are two reviews on the kit, both can be accessed through the Tower web site, just look up the kit and follow the links.

Regarding the retracts, the Robart retracts may be the least cost option! if you stick with pneumatic. Tower sells the Century Jet complete retracts for the kit at $208. I did not pay this much for the Robart set plus accessories. The pneumatics are not difficult to install, probably much less bothersome than mechanical ones in the long run.

The kit is also engineered for the Robats, they just drop in. If you go with another option, modifications may be required. The instruction manual also shows exactly how and provides the parts to set up your air valve link, etc. Not much can go wrong there.

Hi RCnutKC,
Just saw your post as my computer was down for a while
and wanted to pass on my compliments on your Spit. Are you
using flaps l didn't see any in your pic? Also is the wing sheeting fragile, and are you glassing and painting or using monokote?
l read that Dan was surprised at the cost of air retracts, he should
see what they cost up here. l have not had much time to build
lately and just finished the stab/elevator but l'll get cookin now.
Any other info on you plane such as engine choice etc?
Again nice job and good luck.
Dave

Hi Dave:

Thanks for the compliment. Pics can hide a lot of flaws, however...

No, I am not using flaps. I made this decision based on: 1. They are split flaps, so they are not that obvious. 2: In a 60 sized plane, they are not needed to fly (or land) the plane. 3: I wanted to save weight. If I was building anything biggger, or wanted to scale the plane out much more, I would definitely add them. I made the same decision with my FW190 and never regretted it, the plane flies great (better, lighter) without them.

Yes, be careful with the wing sheeting. Do not sand anymore than necessary, and take time joining the skins to line them up. Select heaver balsa for the forward skins, and put the ligher skins on the rear of the wing. 1/16" is the right choice, as you are saving weight. You just have to be more careful until the plane is glassed or covered. I only cracked the skin once, and a little thin CA fixed it right up.

I am glassing my plane with Sig .56 oz cloth, the lightest I can find, and Z-Poxy. That will be followed with laquer primer, then Model Master Enamel paint, details and panel lines, and then sealed with an automotive clear Urethane with flattener. Worked great on my Yellow Zero and TF FW190. My colors are medium Sea Gray underneath, Ocean Gray and Dark Green camo on top.

I am using an OS61 FX in my Spit. Great engine, with lots of power for a 60. Don't let anyone fool you about it being too little, it pulls my TF FW190 around with ease, actually over scale. It will be fine unless you build a brick.

I just finished the cannon housings and barrel tonight, check out the pic!

Cal

:thumbup: Nice joint at leading edge l'm jealous! l am leaning
towards using flaps for realism and help at landing. A fellow club
member who owned one complained about having to come in very
hot to avoid stall and was hard on his and eventually sold it.
He also put his finger through his wing a few times but used
monokote not glass. l am undecided yet but is the strength of
the glass a good trade for the added weight and of course then
you are painting your project. Other posts on this subject warn of
a heavy plane never coming close to the advertised weight by TF.
That is one reason l went with a Saito 91 plus the awsome sound Warbird scale builders would cringe at the thought of using monokote instead of a camo paint job and they
are right but the ease of monokote is tempting, we'll see l have
time to make a decision. Thats it for now, time for some zzzzzz
l am going to the hobby shop in morning for a few items.
Who said xmas is over.
Dave

Hi Dave:

The Saito 91 will be a good choice for this plane. It is about the same power as the OS61 FX two-stroke, so you should have enough power without overkill. I agree with you about the noise, although I am still partial to the simplicity of the two-strokes. Since some are needing nose weight, it may be the better choice.

I too have read the weight discrepancy with TF kits, and have read the reviews that come in 1-2 pounds over the TF specs. I wonder why? Case in point: I put in retracts, cockpit kit, glassed and painted my TF FW190 and it was just over 9 pounds. The specs said 8-10 lbs. Then I read reviews where people were coming in at 11-12 lbs?? I think a lot of it has to do with building techniques, wood selection, and how you glass and paint the plane.

I think, unless I have to add nose weight, that my Spit will be coming in at about 8-9 lbs. It is slightly smaller than the FW190, and the retracts are lighter. I have read reviews, one monokoted, that were over 10 lbs!

I have to take issue with those who think a glassed and painted plane is MUCH heavier than a film covered one. If done right, just is not so. A carefully applied glass and paint job is not much at all heavier than film. Think about it: Monokote has a relative thick plastic layer, and a paint/glue layer. There is some weight there. If you use .56 oz cloth, and ONLY enough resin to fill the weave, and they use thin paint layers, you will come out comparable. Maybe not lighter, but certainly not much heavier. Those who add a lot of weight are 1. Not prepping the surface enough first (you should have all dents, cracks, etc filled with lightweight filler) 2. Using TOO much resin 3. Putting on TOO much primer or not sanding excess off. 4. Using a heavy or too thick paint layers.

Consider painting, it is much more impressive. Of course, there is always a trade-off, and a lot depends on whether you want a sport plane that looks like a Spitfire, or a nice looking semi-scale plane that you can fly like a sport plane. True scale die-hards will look elsewhere, the kit needs too many mods and details to be true scale.

Cal

Just a comment on flaps for top flight kits. I have not flown the Spit. but I have flown the Corsair, P-40 and P-47. Flaps on these models were very beneficial as they let me approach with a higher power setting (and higher speed) without as much chance of an overshoot. The P-40, in particular, went from an "iffy" landing process to a relatively easy one.

Anybody looked into Spring Air Retracts instead of the Robarts for the TF Spit? If so, how much modification is needed to the current configuration shown in manual? For you Merlin lovers try this!

http://www.spitcrazy.com/spitsound.htm

Hi Cal,
Your probably right about the weight issue, l guess it makes it
that more important to control excess weight during construction
to allow more during the finishing stage. l had another suggestion today from a guy who finishes his planes with super
coverite iron on fabric, then a thin coat of clear dope and finally a
camo flat paint job. He swears by it and l saw his finished plane
that way today and l must say it looked great. l am told nose
weight in a TF Spit is gonna happen no matter what engine you
use, amount will vary depending on engine used. And the beat
goes on!
TTsboy l read in another thread that the TF kits are made to
fit Robarts, others have used Spring Air etc. but modifications are
needed how much l'm not sure. Search around for that subject its
in here somewhere. By the way nice Spitcrazy site.
Dave

JLLayton:

You have a point about the flaps, for some models they are helpful. I have heard this several times about the P-40, Corsair, and P-51. I have built and flown the P-47 and FW190 TF kits, and built the flaps in the P-47. Most of the time, I did not use them at all, the plane landed fine (actually easier for me) without them. The FW190 flies great without them and is easy to land. Of course, this may be a reflection of my pilot skills or lack thereof!

Actually, the FW190 is a better flier in my opinion than the P-47. That long tail gives it moments similar to a pattern plane, and the wing shape and dihedral results in a very steady, very easy warbird to fly. I get a lot of comments about how smooth it flies and how slick my landings are, which I attribute to the plane.

For those of you who want to see how a basic paint job sets off the kit, check out my FW190 (my apologies for posting it here on the Spitfire tread).

Cal

Hi guys,
I am listening in the background.

Will the Saito 91 4 stroke (or something similar in size...say the OS 91 4 stroke) fit under the cowl without major surgery?

Jeff

That FW is a keeper Cal, what type/brand of paint did you use
it really did the job, with your expertise also.
Jeff a certain amount of surgery is required for air cooling
anyways and l understand 4 strokes run hotter than 2. l am not
using the supplied abs cowl but picked up a fiberglass one and
l expect l the top of the head will be exposed and of course the
muffler which l hope to tuck in as close to the fuse as l can.
Check out this site http://perfectplanes.tripod.com/inprogress/
this fellow has good pics and info on his TF Spit and close up of
his incowl solution. Very neat. :thumbup:
Dave

Thanks for the compliment, Dave. I use Model Master enamel paints (in hobby stores where plastic models are sold) airbrushed over laquer primer that you can purchase in automotive parts stores. I then fuel proof everything with a final coat of automotive clear urethane with flattener. If I use decals, I usually put down a coat of clear for the decals to adhere too, and that way the decals almost dissapear after the final clear coat. I also thin the paint more (especially the clear) to keep the paint layers thin and light. The automotive paints are tough enough to be able to do this.

Good tip on the site, although I was a little taken back by the amount of nose weight (almost 2 pounds!) the builder needed. I was curious to see where mine was coming out at, so I put everything in the plane to test the bare bones CG. Currently, I am at the forward CG location! However, 80% of your finish is behind the CG, so after finishing I will have to add some nose weight, but hopefully only a few ounces. I did not have the same problem he did with the wing fillet, mine fit very well, although I did use balsa for the first 1-1/2 inches to get the fillet base to conform properly. Good new on his flying experience, even at 11 lbs sounds like the plane flies OK.

Been reading this eagerly as I had, years ago, a Platt Spit and wanted to build a Top Flite to see if anything was improved upon...I was disappointed to see that the landing gear have been repositioned to widen the Spit's track. Has anybody modified the kit to move the l/g back to a more scale-like position?
Old Shep

Hi Cal,
Just wondering what type and size hinges did you use in your Spitfire and FW. Robart hinge point, Dubro flat leaf type, etc
or other. l'm not a fan of CA hinges, in fact never use them.
Anyone else out there have an opinion?

Sorry Old Shep, l'm not near that stage yet maybe someone else would like to handle your question.
Dave

Dave:

I used CA hinges. For me, they work fine. If installed properly, they are as duarable as any. If you are not trusting, just run a test: Take a couple scraps, cut a sloppy hinge slot, use the CA hinge and hinge the scraps. Now, try to pull them apart. You will have to destroy the wood to do so. Make sure to follow the instructions, use thin CA, and you MUST glue the surfaces together at one time, not glue one side of the hinge in and then the other.

I hinge the moving surfaces after primer, but before my color coats. That way the paint covers any glue mistakes. The hinges dissapear.

Cal

Some swear by CA hinges others would never risk it given the
outcome of a hinge or control surface failure, but your right they
must be installed properly. What about longevity, how long have you had them in a plane that you flew often, any signs of wear?
l guess the choice is mine l just felt for this plane (size, weight,
effort $$ etc) l wanted to make sure of such an important area
meaning are CA hinges strong and lasting. But then why would they include them in the kit if not suitable. l must admit you have
me interested in trying them.
Dave

I've built the TF Spit as a "sport kit" (no flaps, has a fixed gear). I like to build simply, but make a war bird otherwise look like a war bird. I covered my Spit with flat olive, grey, black and gloss white (invasion stripes) Monokote. I used lustercote olive and grey paint on the cowl, with Testors Model Masters RAF dark sea gray paint on the upper surfaces. I oversprayed everything with lustercote clear flat.

Just finished it and will have to wait for awhile to fly it (Winter in Wisconsin).

I love warbirds, but don't like the complications of buying, setting up and repairing retracts and flaps. Other warbird pilots at our field almost never use their flaps.

I'm also trying to show my fellow club members who oggle warbirds at the field, then build Four Star Forties because they shy away from warbird building and flying, that they are really not that tough. This is the 3rd TF kit I've done as a sport (simple) plane. The P-39 and P-51 preceded the Spit. They're all powered by OS .61 FX engines. I can fly at half throttle for 15 or more minutes and use up only half a 12 oz. tank. They all have flown like a nice .60-sized Sportster or a stick, i.e. stable, reasonably slow landings.

Get losts of ooohs and ahhhs at the field while flying them. Can fly them anytime, not just special fly ins because they are so simple and foolproof. Just have to land a tad faster than with a sport plane. After awhile, you gain enough experience flying them, that passes over the field can be flown at such an angle, that you don't even reveal the gear hanging down. Had one guy swear I had retracts in my P-39. He couldn't see the gear hanging.

Used Great Planes hinges. Epoxied them in. I wouldn't trust CA hinges on this big an airplane.

I'm not saying that retracts/flaps are bad, I just like to keep it simple. Can't wait to do the TF Corsair and P-40 the same way!

Dave:

The hinge choice is really a personal matter. You are correct in that there are a lot of opinions about CA hinges, and any other hinge for that matter. I have never personally witnessed a CA hinge failure, and have them in 5 of my planes. Some have been flown for 3+ years, hundreds of flights, and no sign of wear. I don't think it is possible to wear them out, the only possibility of failure is improper installation or if somehow they were to be cut (unlikely, but any hinge will fail if abused enough).

Thanks Dhable, you are right on about the TF warbirds, they are just fun to fly in their simple state, and still fly fine with retracts, details, etc. I am building the 3rd one, and have enjoyed the others a lot. I did not build retracts in the first one (P-47) and monokoted it, but did build the flaps (I sold my P-47 for $300 after flying it for 3+ years). In my FW190 I built retracts but not flaps, and painted it to get the authentic German camo. I like having retracts, although they are more work and maintenance. I have had good luck with them so far, and just love the sight of those tires dissapearing into the wing.

My Spit will have retracts but not the flaps.

Cal

:thumbup: Very nice Spitfire dhable, clean looking.
How did you find the wing sheeting, very fragile? Did you do any
prep work before you applied the monokote? Also which pilot
figure did you use and did you use a cockpit kit? l'm sure your Spit
will turn lots of heads at the field.
Dave