Flying Legends Spitfire- Its dead

[Solid Snake]

Just wrote off my FL Spitfire today 9 months after buying the kit i got the chance to maiden it, only for the damn thing to go into the ground. In 9 months it only spent 12 seconds in the air. The 9 month delay was due to bad customer service form the website we bought it from, bad weather and the awful build quality. After launch it started banking to the right, trying to correct it caused it to lose speed and go down The front bulkhead with the motor attached to it completely broke off taking the battery with it. The internal plywood structure was beond repair and the wing was starting to split in half. It wasn't even a "crash" more like a heavy landing, yet it still broke. Possibly the worst ARTF around today.

 

Was planning on getting a Multiplex Blizzard (you might have seen my other thread) but now i am going to replace this with either a parkzone Corsair or a proper Ripmax Spitfire

 

(Photos will be up soon, the uploader wasn't working)

 

Edited By James E on 31/01/2010 17:11:55

[JohnP25]

Heartfelt sympathy mate

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Tough luck James - but Spitfire's are notorious for being bad flyers - and I'm afraid current ARTF's seem to me to be built from tissue paper! The experience of them "exploding" into tiny fragments of paper thin plywood on even the lightest impact is not unusual I'm afraid.

 

BEB

[Tim Kearsley]

Very sorry to hear that James, that must have been an absolute sickener.

 

If you do decide to go for the Ripmax Spit, you won't regret it!  I've had one for almost two years now and with one minor repair (after a bad landing!) it's still flying beautifully.  They look good and they really do fly superbly.

 

Best of luck, whatever you do.

 

Cheers,

 

Tim.

 

[kiwi g]

Sorry to here about spitfire james.

I had a similar accident with a chinese build cap 232. I had not even left the ground.

Rolled out for take off , up to speed undercarridge came off prop struck the ground and ripped out the firewall and pulled out the wing mount taking part of fuselage with it.

On inspection there was no glue to be seen other than light tacks here and there.

Makes one wonder about buying cheaper arfs.

I still like to build my own aircraft.

Kiwi g

 

ps and sometimes the more expensive arfs are no better.

[Doug Ireland]

Sorry guys, but remember the old adage: "You pays yer money and takes yer chance!"

 

This is why I build models and not just assemble them. At least then you only have yourself to blame if it all falls apart on the first heavier-than-than-your-average, arrival!

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Couldn't agree more chaps!

 

Build 'em yerself - then you know what's in 'em, and there's real pleasure to be had building your own model! Even if its not quite as perfect as the next guys ARTF - it all yours. And if the worst happens - well you built it from the wood - you can fix it!

 

And what's more, if it all does fall to bits - you've only yourself to blame

 

BEB

[IanN]

Much truth and wisdom in the above posts

 

ARTFs have several things to commend them - but so does plan or kit building

[Simon B]

I wish i had the skills to make a Spitfire that looks as nice as the Ripmax one I bought!  That said, after seeing pics of the same one which detached from its firewall on a landing, I poured  a load of wood glue on the major joints before i did anything else!

Edited By Simon B on 31/01/2010 23:06:31

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

The thing is Simon, the skills come from practice - you might be pleasantly surprised what you can achieve

 

BEB

[Shaun K]

James & Simon,

 

Why not try the 62" Tony Nijhuis Spit - if you can get your hands on the recent Plans Special mag then you've got the plan and can get the wood kit from the myhobbystore web site to make a fast start.

 

I've been building it (for way too long now) as only my second plan build and it looks fantastic. Haven't flown it yet but the guys on this forum who have all say it flies well. Check out my photos which I think show that Tony has done a fine job of the overall design and outlines, though bear in mind that I did customise mine a little to give it a Mk 8 back end.

 

I takes a long time, but having successfully built and flown one plane, I can say I've had no greater feeling of achievement (and nerves) in aeromodelling than seeing my first plane flying.

 

If you follow the build articles, use this fine font of knowledge when you get stuck or ask your club gurus and have a go it's so very worth it in the end.

 

Shaun K.

Edited By Shaun K on 01/02/2010 02:48:55

Edited By Shaun K on 01/02/2010 02:50:10

[Ed Darter]

I think another part of the 'build it yourself' philosophy that is an advantage is that you have an inherrent understanding of how the model is made up, and what to look for  in terms of wear and tear, damage if you have a heavy arrival etc. You Know that firewall had triangular stock behind it, has the glue joint held out etc etc.

 

Having said all that - the nerves are multiplied massively when flying an own build, sometimes to the extent that flying an ARTF that you have no emotional attachment to would actually be beneficial.

[Simon B]

"you might be pleasantly surprised what you can achieve"

 

Trust me, when you've seen my covering 'skills' you wouldn't say that

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Couldn't agree more Eric!

 

Point is you'll never get better at covering, or anything else, unless you "have a go" and keep on "having a go". Everyone starts off not being able to do it - most of us reach the "competant" stage - a few excell.

 

But as Eric says - its the impression you get in the air that really matters. Believe me if you take a close up look at my covering you'll find lots too critize - but I don't really worry about it. Sure, I'd like to do it better, and slowly I think I am getting better - but as long as it looks the biz when flying and I can say "Its all mine" - I'm happy!

 

BEB 

[Solid Snake]

Thanks guys

Unfortunately building from a complicated plan/kit isn't really an option at the moment due to limited space (and skill ) so ARTFs are the only way at the moment. Would love to build my own model at some point in the future.

As for the FL Spitfire it wasn't much of a loss. The motor and ESC are probably going to end up powering my Easystar, give it a bit more grut And i gained more experience from the whole thing.

When looking for Ripmax Spitfires i came across the Hyperion Ki 84,oh how very tempting

P.S i'm currently drawing up a simple Mig 25 style plan on a 2D design program to be Laser cut (should at least be quicker to build) may or may not come to anything

 

oh and the photo uploader still won't let me put the damage photos on

[PHILIP HANNAM]

I purchased an Old New Stock Spit two weeks ago. Just £30 with motor and esc. Surely a bargain"!!! In the box the plane looked absolutely terrific with accurate detail in most areas.

However.........The term ARTF is a huge exaggeration due to the problems I encountered assembling the beast. It took me two days to finally get it flight-worthy and then of course the weather went downhill.

Having pre-read many of the comments on this Forum I thought that I would be able to keep one step ahead of the likely hassles. Was I wrong BIG time!!! Time had obviously not been kind to the finish of this 2009 model. As I cut away the sealed plastic bagging to get at the larger chunks, pieces of paint rained down onto my bench. This was followed by small chunks of wood and hard foam. OK a little touching up to the paintwork would be required but that's nothing new to my flying (actually landing) record.

Next issue was fitting the servos. My brand new standard 9g servos would not fit in the cutaways. Ok so some trimming was needed. Plus some thought as how to connect and mount the wing servo. I noted that some fliers had mounted 2 wing servos but this must have needed major top skin surgery and then added framing to work. I opted for a rectangular thin ply frame to give stiffness for a single inverted servo. Even then friction in the cable caused the servo to twist until I braced it with some basla blocks. As I was handling the fuselage, it was clear, from the rattles, that pieces were not secure within. Sure enough, both of the fuselage longerons were loose which in turn meant the battery and servo tray was free to wander around. Epoxy glue was used to reunite the respective lumps plus the odd smear around the engine mount to reinforce those joins. As many have already said, the engine cowl, prop and spinner are both a waste of materials in comparison to the rest of the model. I liked the idea of being able to display the model with the correct 4 blade prop, but where are the other 2 blades? Having got all the major chunks bolted together I then added one of my 900mha cells to the nose end. The CoG was well behind the recommended balance point. A 1800mha battery helped but that pushed the total plane weight to nearly 700g. On the box it states just 500g!!! From years of flying similar sized Spitfire models I know that once over 550g you need speed to stay airborne and consequently landings are generally fast and furious. I can not see any of those underside fittings surving into old age. My weight compromise was 50g of lead on the engine mount plus the 900mha battery, behind the motor. giving a model max flying weight of 630g.

[PHILIP HANNAM]

First flight................good take-off but flying trim way off. Huge amount of elevator up trim needed for level flight initially but once speed was building up this had to be taken off. Slight turn to starboard sorted. Plane was obviously still tail heavy as it wallowed in loops.

The whole 5 minute flight was not pleasant due to the trim problem which meant constant use of the controls just to keep the plane level and inside the flying field. My prediction of a fast landing speed came true as a good approach and flare-out at a reasonable speed turned into a stall and wing drop. The high speed of the plane took it nose down through 18" high grass and smashed the cowling just as everybody above said would happen.

A serious amount of Expoxy glue was required to re-fix numerous innards and the engine mount that had come loose. Glass fibre matting was applied to the inside of the engine cowl to re-inforce it and the tail plane was repositioned to make it level with the main wing. Finally, a week later it was back to the field for another sortie. This time a heavier 1000mah battery was used to add ballast to the nose plus another 25g of lead that was screwed to the engine mount. This put the flying weight up to 700g which is just bonkers for the wing area available.

Flight two highlighted a launching issue. If you hold the plane in front of the wing the prop takes chunks out of your wrist but launching using a handhold behind the cockpit does not always lead to a level or smooth climb out. The plane needs a fast/hard throw or it will stall and flip over which is was nearly happened on the second flight. Fortunately, because the launch area slopes away downwards I was able to regain control and grass cut my way towards a flying speed.

This second flight was far, far better with none of the trim problems of the first experience. The plane was much easier to control at any speed and flew where it was pointed. Mindful of the barmy flying weight I brought the plane in for a fast controlled landing in the tall grass. This was achieved but at cost as the grass stalks stripped more of the paintwork off the underside. Landing on cut grass appears to be a no win situation. Too slow and you stall and spiral in.....too fast and you take out the prop and underside control links.