Great Planes Spitfire ARF
Tom Alford
Hey, just picked up one of those Great Planes Spitfire ARF's. Anyone
out there had any experience with this model (or the similar Corsair,
Mustang, or FW 190)? Anything good or bad to say about it?
Thanks!
Tom
Tom Alford
David Fielding wrote:
> Tom,
>
> I helped a friend set up and test fly the FW190 in this series. He initially put a larger engine (O.S. .61) in it - it flew, but was prone to tip stalls and a brick-like glide.
>
> We switched to a .46, and it now flies like a nice sportplane should. You still have to watch for tipstalls as it slows, but it lands nice.
>
> I'd say keep it light, and don't overpower it, and it should fly fine.
>
> - David Fielding
Oh no. Bad news. As far as keeping it like goes.... The engine I was
planning on putting in it is an OS .71 Surpass 4 stroke. It isn't
brutally powerful 1.2 HP I think, but it's heavy... So the kits cant
handle any weight??
Tom
David Fielding
Tom Alford <alf...@students.uiuc.edu> writes: > Hey, just picked up one of those Great Planes Spitfire ARF's. Anyone
Tom,
Ian Atkinson
Hi, yep, bought on 5 months ago. Mostly goes together nicely but
I had a problem with the aileron torque rods hitting the wing
bolt mounting plate. I still cant figure out what I did wrong, i
had to greatly shorten the ends of the rods and cut away some of the
wing mouting plate. Other than that it's a nice model. I used
an OS FS71 and hobbico mechanical retracts as spec'd in the
plans/manual. I wouldn't reccomment using the retracts, the're more
bother than they are worth.
The model flies ok, but nothing spectacular IMO - depends what
you want from it.
Good luck
Ian
vpc/jlc
Charles & Peggy Robinson wrote:
>
> "Throw a brick in the air and follow it down." I like that, David.
> Why is it that everyone seems to want unlimited vertical? No one pays
> attention to power loading.
>
> CR
This is why most R/C pilots, who aren't full scale pilots or have an in
depth knowledge of flight would kill themselves if left to fly a full
scale plane without an instructor. They don't know how to fly a plane
with a normal thrust to weight ratio.
Vince
AMA 266036
--
To reply via E-Mail: Remove the abc from the reply-to address
David Fielding
I know what you mean, Vince. Real planes (and real r/c pilots) fly on the
wings, not on the throttle.
Kind of relates to an old puzzlement of mine. Why is it that an average
4-seat plane works just fine with 160-180 horsepower, but sportscars and
trucks come out with 230 h.p. and more? A "high performance" plane is
defined as over 200 h.p.
I know, I know. Airplanes are built to fly. Cars are built to crash.
Fly (and drive) safe.
- David Fielding
Charles & Peggy Robinson
Gerald43
>Hey, just picked up one of those Great Planes Spitfire ARF's. Anyone
>out there had any experience with this model
Yea, I have extensive experience with the Spit.
1. It's heavy, put a strong .46 on it.
2. The foam covering is hard to repair if dinged.
3. The retracts recommended (Hobbico) suck. They are too weak and must
be constantly rebent and the stops adjusted.
4. Other than these things, it looks nice in the air and does fly pretty
good, just keep some speed up on landing.
Gera...@aol.com
"Batman"
vpc/jlc
Alvin wrote:
> In my opinion, those who always crave for unlimited vertical don't
> really know the real aspects of true flight. That's probably the reason
> why they are only RC pilots and not real pilots.
>
> Probably the only planes that are capable of unlimited vertical would be
> your jet fighters and some aerobatics aircraft...but even so, what's the
> big deal of flying vertically forever and ever?
>
> --
> Cheers,
It's a testosterone thing.
Steve Lewin
The message <34657C...@pacific.net.sg>
from Alvin <le...@pacific.net.sg> contains these words:
> Charles & Peggy Robinson wrote:
> >
> In my opinion, those who always crave for unlimited vertical don't
> really know the real aspects of true flight. That's probably the reason
> why they are only RC pilots and not real pilots.
Of course it could also have something to do with the 100 ukp per
hour (160 dollars) it costs to train in a "real" aircraft over here,
or the 4 to 500 dollars per hour it costs to fly a "real" aerobatic plane.
Steve
Trifraug
<<Why is it that everyone seems to want unlimited vertical?>>
It's a popular way to show off how much power they have. Not a
_good_ way, just a popular one. IMHO, enough power to do the vertical
portions of maneuvers is all a plane needs (I should talk -- I'll
overpower anything!).
BTW, glad to see you, Charley!
...Keir (Cap’n Crunch)
Alvin
Charles & Peggy Robinson wrote:
>
> "Throw a brick in the air and follow it down." I like that, David.
> Why is it that everyone seems to want unlimited vertical? No one pays
> attention to power loading.
In my opinion, those who always crave for unlimited vertical don't
really know the real aspects of true flight. That's probably the reason
why they are only RC pilots and not real pilots.
Probably the only planes that are capable of unlimited vertical would be
your jet fighters and some aerobatics aircraft...but even so, what's the
big deal of flying vertically forever and ever?
--
Cheers,
Alvin at le...@pacific.net.sg
Tom Alford
> In my opinion, those who always crave for unlimited vertical don't
> really know the real aspects of true flight. That's probably the > reason why they are only RC pilots and not real pilots.
Whats with all these type comments? I post a message asking about a 70
OS 4 stroke and my GP Spit ARF and I get the real vs RC pilot thing? I
am CFII at the University of Illinois and I understand the weight and
wing loading argument. But I assume that the wing had enough area to
fly relatively well with the largest engine size it recommends, or else
the manufaturer shouldnt have suggested it. I dont care if it stalls 2
kts faster. Anyway, going vertical doesn't have anything to do with why
other RC pilots aren't real ones. It's the price, like the other guy
suggested. But hell, that's why I do like to fly RC airplanes. Because
general aviation airplanes wont go sustained vertical or do split-s
etc... So I say, mount the biggest engine she'll hold and still fly
worth damn
Tom
Neil Dahl
70 surpass in it. It flies well, sounds great. This was his first plane
after his trainer stage. Hobbico gear struts were replaced with robo
struts and the gear now is holding up well. We do fly off of asphalt
runway.
Neil Dahl
--
Neil's Home Page--- http://www.flash.net/~neildahl/
Jason Holtz
Tom Alford wrote:
> > In my opinion, those who always crave for unlimited vertical don't
> > really know the real aspects of true flight. That's probably the >
> reason why they are only RC pilots and not real pilots.
>
> Whats with all these type comments? I post a message asking about a
> 70
> OS 4 stroke and my GP Spit ARF and I get the real vs RC pilot thing?
> I
> am CFII at the University of Illinois and I understand the weight and
> wing loading argument. But I assume that the wing had enough area to
> fly relatively well with the largest engine size it recommends, or
> else
> the manufaturer shouldnt have suggested it. I dont care if it stalls
> 2
> kts faster. Anyway, going vertical doesn't have anything to do with
> why
> other RC pilots aren't real ones. It's the price, like the other guy
> suggested. But hell, that's why I do like to fly RC airplanes.
> Because
> general aviation airplanes wont go sustained vertical or do split-s
> etc... So I say, mount the biggest engine she'll hold and still fly
> worth damn
>
> Tom
I couldnt agree with this more...I do not have my PPL but i do fly
full scale and in my opinion if you want to fly a slow airplane build a
Cub or a Cessna. When modeling a Spitfire which i believe was about a
450knot capable bird make the model fast too. give it that engine make
it fly the way YOU want it to fly. This hobby is mostley about having
fun and if having fun meens going fast then by all meens go fast and go
vertical. If you are a pilot who does not measure fun in MPH get a
flying king.
Jason
Trifraug
<<So I say, mount the biggest engine she'll hold and still fly
worth damn>>
I'd rather have the most powerful engine within the weight limits.
Manufacturers' recommendations are often over-optimistic.
...Trifraug