TonyM

Tim: I haven't really considered this, as I expected it would upset the geometry of what are perfectly-operating retracts . . . but I will give it a go if all else fails Cheers, Tony

Thanks for this guys. I appreciate your input, but to be perfectly frank I'm sure that my Spit's nose-over problem isn't connected to the type of wheel, or even u/c, which came with the ARTF kit, as she has never nosed-over during the landing itself. She's only nosed-over after she's lost ground speed and has almost come to a halt, or after I've applied power to attempt to taxi following the landing (oh - and during the take-off when going off our very well-kept grass) I now know that the model's u/c really is too far to the rear, and judging by what you said C8, it's a very long way to the rear seeing-as the leading edge of the wheel is actually well-behind the leading edge of the wing. Unfortunately I don't see any way to modify this, as the leading edge of the wheel well is already as close to the wing's main spar as it could be, so there's just no room to move it rorwards without also moving the main spar . . . unless someone knows better of course I really believe that you have all put me on the right lines, and that once I've bent the u/c so that the leading edge of the wheels are as close as possible to the front of the wells, and once I've moved the cg back to the recommended 100mm . . . all I'll then need to do is 'fly war birds properly' to avoid tip-stalls and all will be good. I'm off to the workshop to finish-up my outstanding 'chores' so that I can get started on the Spit Tony

Hi Tim, I love flying my H9 Twist as it quite simply 'does everything I ask of it'. I got it 11 years ago for the absolute bargain price of one penny . . . in reality it was given to me (because I never did pay the penny!) as compensation for having received a terribly-built H9 Funtana (which is another model I love flying, despite the poor build issue). Tomorrow should see me start/ and finish sorting-out today's three slightly problematic models, tomorrow evening we have an indoor flying event, so if the weather is of the non-flying variety on Wednesday I will be able to get to work on my Spitfire - which I'm now really looking forward to Tony

Hi Glenn, Thanks for this. You have confirmed what others have suggested - I've simply got too much weight on my model's nose - especially since I've removed the flap servo and moved the elevator and rudder servos 5 inches forward, as well as using lighter servos than 'normal', making the tail-end much lighter. With all other models I've flown, achieving a neutral elevator when flying either way up meant I'd got the cg 'right on the money,' but I now know (from what you have all told me) that this doesn't apply to war birds, and that if I remove some of the nose-weight, making inverted flight require some down elevator, this should cure my chronic nose-over problem I'm going to dust my Spitfire off, re-check everything, and then sort-out the nose-weight situation - and perhaps I'll then get the model logging-up the flights. However, today's flying session has thrown-up three slightly more urgent issues I need to attend to so that I can continue taking advantage of our current great flying weather. I took 3 models with me today, two which I've only recently finished building and my old Hangar 9 Twist (with almost 300 flights logged). The £8.50 Lidl glider flies great, but it needs a little down-thrust on the motor. My TechOne Yak needs a little less down-thrust, and one of the aileron servos in my old and usually reliable Twist decided to fail so I need to replace this Once I get these things sorted I'll definitely be re-balancing my Spitfire Thanks Again, Tony   Edited By TonyM on 21/08/2017 18:12:45 Edited By TonyM on 21/08/2017 18:13:15

Thanks for the "pardon" and for the servo arm tip Tim. Glad to hear that your P47 flew well Tony

Here's a link to the history of my Spitfire up to the time when I put it aside due to having become disillusioned with its lack of taxi-ability: **LINK**

Thanks for your comments, and also for showing me your video too Jon - very nice model very well-flown and landed. It will be a while before I fly my Spit again as I can tell that I need to re-think and re-balance it (at least). But I will (eventially) do as you ask and get someone to shoot a video of my landings. Cheers, Tony

Part 3 Seems I typed too much for even two posts in this forum . . . sorry guys! .wlEmoticon { behavior: url(#default#.WLEMOTICON_WRITER_BEHAVIOR) } img { behavior: url(#default#IMG_WRITER_BEHAVIOR) } .wlWriterEditableSmartContent { behavior: url(#default#.WLWRITEREDITABLESMARTCONTENT_WRITER_BEHAVIOR) } .wlWriterEditableSmartContent > .wlEditField { behavior: url(#default#.WLWRITEREDITABLESMARTCONTENT_>_.WLEDITFIELD_WRITER_BEHAVIOR) } blockquote { behavior: url(#default#BLOCKQUOTE_WRITER_BEHAVIOR) } #extendedEntryBreak { behavior: url(#default##EXTENDEDENTRYBREAK_WRITER_BEHAVIOR) } .postBody table { behavior: url(#default#.POSTBODY_TABLE_WRITER_BEHAVIOR) } .postBody td { behavior: url(#default#.POSTBODY_TD_WRITER_BEHAVIOR) } .postBody th { behavior: url(#default#.POSTBODY_TH_WRITER_BEHAVIOR) } .postTitle {margin: 0px 0px 10px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;} .postBody {margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; } Glenn: Many thanks for posting your pix. I see that your batts are alongside the engine - mine are both above it, so we both have the same battery weight up-front. Can I ask: Did you also need to add more weight up-front to achieve the recommended 100mm cg? I had to add a fair amount of lead too - and since then, as I said earlier, I've moved 'everything' further forward too (hmmmm - Jon's right about my model now being nose-heavy, isn't he!) Tim: Hope you had a great holiday! And, as I said earlier, I do apologise if I've hijacked your thread to some degree, it's not intentional. It was just that after reading what you'd written, and after seeing the advice you were given, I couldn't resist 'tapping into the knowledge pool' . You mentioned nose-overs during taxiing - and you've hit the nail right on the head with this, because not being able to taxi back from a landing is (now that I think about it) why I stopped flying my Spit. I can taxi every other model I have, every time - but never with the Spit, not even with massive high rate elevator to keep the tail down, so I just need to cure this and I'll be set to fly it more. So far I have never had to re-bend the u/c legs, as I've not had any heavy landings (I crashed it into a fence once, but not with the wheels down - sounds like that low pass was too low and too far, eh!). The wheels are bang in the centre of their wells, exactly as they should be . . . although I now plan to bend them forwards as far as they'll go within the wells since you tell me that they bend easily - this might actually help a lot, even though there's not much room in the wells for forward movement. So: Thanks again everyone for all your great ideas. I'm off to my workshop to implement some of them and will report back in due course with an update. Bye for now, Tony PS: Can those with models which fly and taxi ok please let me know their model's cg?

.wlEmoticon { behavior: url(#default#.WLEMOTICON_WRITER_BEHAVIOR) } img { behavior: url(#default#IMG_WRITER_BEHAVIOR) } .wlWriterEditableSmartContent { behavior: url(#default#.WLWRITEREDITABLESMARTCONTENT_WRITER_BEHAVIOR) } .wlWriterEditableSmartContent > .wlEditField { behavior: url(#default#.WLWRITEREDITABLESMARTCONTENT_>_.WLEDITFIELD_WRITER_BEHAVIOR) } blockquote { behavior: url(#default#BLOCKQUOTE_WRITER_BEHAVIOR) } #extendedEntryBreak { behavior: url(#default##EXTENDEDENTRYBREAK_WRITER_BEHAVIOR) } .postBody table { behavior: url(#default#.POSTBODY_TABLE_WRITER_BEHAVIOR) } .postBody td { behavior: url(#default#.POSTBODY_TD_WRITER_BEHAVIOR) } .postBody th { behavior: url(#default#.POSTBODY_TH_WRITER_BEHAVIOR) } .postTitle {margin: 0px 0px 10px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;} .postBody {margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; } .wlEmoticon { behavior: url(#default#.WLEMOTICON_WRITER_BEHAVIOR) } img { behavior: url(#default#IMG_WRITER_BEHAVIOR) } .wlWriterEditableSmartContent { behavior: url(#default#.WLWRITEREDITABLESMARTCONTENT_WRITER_BEHAVIOR) } .wlWriterEditableSmartContent > .wlEditField { behavior: url(#default#.WLWRITEREDITABLESMARTCONTENT_>_.WLEDITFIELD_WRITER_BEHAVIOR) } blockquote { behavior: url(#default#BLOCKQUOTE_WRITER_BEHAVIOR) } #extendedEntryBreak { behavior: url(#default##EXTENDEDENTRYBREAK_WRITER_BEHAVIOR) } .postBody table { behavior: url(#default#.POSTBODY_TABLE_WRITER_BEHAVIOR) } .postBody td { behavior: url(#default#.POSTBODY_TD_WRITER_BEHAVIOR) } .postBody th { behavior: url(#default#.POSTBODY_TH_WRITER_BEHAVIOR) } .postTitle {margin: 0px 0px 10px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;} .postBody {margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; } Part 2 Jon: You may be right that my model is now nose-heavy (it does make sense) - especially since you said that you wouldn't expect a war bird to fly inverted neutrally - which mine does (although I have a lot of model flying experience this is the first war bird I've had, so I guess I need to 're-train'. I'll definitely take this on-board and see what I can to to redress the situation. One thing I can immediately do is reinstall the flap servo (I'd previously forgotten that I'd removed it and fixed the flaps in position to reduce the tailweight even more!). As for my landings: I'm 'flying her in quite hot' in fear of stalling (so don't need flaps), so I guess I'm 'wheeling' it in. We actually have access to a tarmac strip, which makes take-offs a non-issue as far as nose-overs are concerned - but landing on the tarmac is a non-starter for me due to the fast-ish landings I need to make (the model would end-up running into a fence even if I chopped the throttle as soon as she neared the ground - and even a walk down the strip to retrieve the model isn't an endearing thought). I have the elevator movement set at exactly 3/8inch on low rate, which ties-in perfectly with your Hurricane. Reading (and re-reading) your post has got me thinking that I am probably expecting this model to accept my flying style, rather than adapting my flying style to the model's capabilities. I normally fly 3D and funfly models and have never been interested in scale-like flying at all (the Spitfire was a present which I would never have bought for myself). Maybe I really do need to fly my model Spitfire in much the same way as the original would fly (boring . . sorry, but I am seriously adicted to 3D flying! Ha ha!). You have really given me a lot to think about here . . . but at least I know for sure that it's capable of sustained inverted and that it will loop, stall-turn, spin and even flat-spin. It will even do an acceptible Lomcovak too . . . but if only it would taxi! Ha ha!

Seems I needed to cut my post in half . . . so Part 2 will appear once I've retyped it

HI Guys, First of all . . . many thanks for all your ideas, thoughts and suggestions to help me 'tame' my Spitfire. They are all appreciated and they will all be considered Tim: I hope you don't mind, but I want to go through each of the suggestions and respond to them individually. I'm really sorry if this is seen as 'hijacking your thread', as I don't mean to do this at all. I'll duck-out as soon as I've replied to all the kind fellow model-fliers who have taken the trouble to respond to me 'cry for help' . . . I hope this is ok with you Hi Piers: Unfortunately I don't think it's possible to pack-out the landing gear, as I believe this would upset the geometry and make retraction impossible - but I'd love to be proved wrong as I'm sure you're right about it helping stop the nose-overs. As you suspected: The supplied wheels are as large as can be accommodated in their wells, so I can't fit l;arger ones either. We actually pay to have our strip kept well-mown, so I can't blame long grass for my problem (and this is the only model I have any kind of nose-over problem with btw) Denis: I really wish that the axles were on the leading edge of the wing, as I'm sure this would completely cure the nose-over problem. Looking at Glenss's pix, I can see that mine are in exactly the same position as his - the leading edge of my model's wheels are about half-an-inch behind the wing's leading edge - the axles are of course even further aft than this. And to be frank, I've even considered rebuilding the wing with the retracts mounted further forward, but the front edge of the wheels already live very close to the wing's main spar when retracted, so I can't see how I could (easily) do this. I don't use expo, but I do wonder why it's not advised, as it's use would render the elevator movement mild around centre yet still allow me to yank-in a handful in to keep the nose up once the model's on the ground - instead of having to switch to high rates. Indeed some members of my club have advised me to use expo so that I don't have to switch to high rates at just the right time during the landing. Puzzling - unless the worry is that I may yank-back on the elevator too soon, and that the model could find itself airborn again, and stalling (which I've actually done whilst still on low rates!). I just re-read what you said about 'all the movement coming in a bunch!' . . . I guess that makes a lot of sense. I'll remain non-exponentialled

Hi Tim, I trust your Spitfire it still flying and that your engine is improving all the time now I too have this model, with a Saito .82 installed. But after struggling to achieve a "suitable" cg, and after only 14 flights, I put the it aside and have not flown it for a couple of years now The problem i have sounds very similar to what you have experienced with yours. My model was tail heavy, so it liked to tip stall when slowed-up or even lightly looped - even though the elevator deflection actually seems tiny (because I'd reduced it in fear of stalling during landing flare-outs). Consequently the landings require greater concentration and snugger-fitting bycicle clips than has been required with any other model I've ever flown Right from the beginning I realised that my model was going to need a lot of weight up-front, so I mounted both the RX and u/c battery above the engine - along with a modicum of lead weight. But, as i said, the model still ended-up tail heavy To "fix" this situation, and whilst not wanting to add even more dead weight to the front-end, I exchanged the elevator and rudder servos for slim-line items and moved them as far forward as I could get them. They now live either side of the tank and right up against the firewall. I also changed the throttle servo for a smaller one and re-sited this as far forward as I could get it, below and to one side of the tank. The balance point now seemed perfect with the model flying either way up and needing barely any elevator correction, but now the ground handling had become horrendous To prevent a nose-over, the take-off began with full up elevator on high rates . . . But to avoid the take off progressing directly into a tip stall, I had to release the elevator as soon as the model's wheels looked like they were about to leave the ground. Then i would switch-over to low rates for the actual take-off. All very complicated and anxiety-producing! The landing was interesting too, in that even when i slowed the model right down, it would still lift off again after i applied a little elevator to pull the tail back down towards the ground....despite the elevator movement being tiny. So i had to reduce the landing speed until it actually looked too slow to be a safe landing speed, and then the model would still, gently(thank goodness), nose-over as soon as the wheels met the ground. Switching to high rates as soon as the model's wheels touched did keep the tail down on a couple of occasions, but i could not get the timing of this procedure right every time, so more than once the model jumped back into the air, stalled, and then simply dropped to the ground. All of which is what led me to put the model aside Right now I'm thinking that I'd like to "have another go" at getting my Spitfire flying and ground-handling as well as I see others on YouTube . . . But what on earth do I have to do to achieve this? I've been thinking that if the u/c was cranked forward an extra half inch this would probably solve all my problems, but of course saying this and actually doing it are two different things, as the task doesn't appear to be an easy one! I would welcome any advice on this one, as I'm completely stuck for new ideas.....maybe I should just take some weight off the nose and fly it tail-heavy enough to keep the tailwheel on the ground during take-off, landing and taxiing, and then just put-up with having to be very careful not to tip stall it in the air? Tony

Count me in - please

Hope I win, for once (just once would be enough to restore my faith in Lady Luck!)  Tony

Thanks for this guys - I hadn't thought about using a biplane for this particular project - but it looks as though it may help with both the construction, and the flying . . . . maybe! I seem to recall that Don Incoll modified a model for inverted take-off and landings quite a while ago (in fact I'd be amazed if he didn't do so - seeing-as he tried just about everything else you could think of with model planes) Come to think about it, I really miss reading about Don's prolific building (and crashing) and really wish he'd left his web-site on-line for us all to enjoy Around 8 years ago I followed Don's example and fitted a HAL auto-pilot into a model's wing (looking through "windows" in the top and bottom of the wing). The auto-pilot was activated via a switch on my Tx. Turning it on at any time during flight made the model immediately want to head for the heavens, making "hands-off prop-hanging" possible . . . . it was great fun at the time. Come back Don - all's forgiven! Sorry, I think I digressed a little there! Anyway, I would appreciate more leads/pix to give me some more clues about how I might plan and build my "upsy-downsy" project Tony