Take one Dynam Spitfire...

[eflightray]

Steve, a workshop ?, that is not a 'man cave', that's a 'man cavern'. (there isn't an icon for 'green with envy'.

I build in a box-room off a single bed tipped on its side, with a piece of conti-board laid on top.

 

 

 

The Spit fuselage is my version of the Tony Nijhuis 72" Spitfire, (the free plan), but built in Depron foam, (half the expected balsa version weight).

 

 

Edited By eflightray neath on 03/03/2015 20:24:44

[Steve T]

Don't know how to tell you this eflight, but I have two log cabins I built about 5 years ago, the second one is 50% bigger.....and I shall transfer modelling, music and animals into the bigger man-cavern at the end of March. We had an employee who lived in the log cabin but after 7 years he is leaving us as we are closing down the business part he worked on. I need the bigger cabin anyway as I am restricted to wingspan of 12' / 3.6m ! at the moment. I will take out the cooker but it will be nice having a sink with hot running water and of course a beer fridge....and underfloor heating.....12 sockets around the walls, a sanctuary! Not sure what to do with my old cabin though.

[eflightray]

Boy, I bet you even go round with a duster

On the American forum, they love to show their basement workshops, (what I would call a small industrial unit), but they always look spotless as though they don't actually do anything in them.

I still manage to build a few biggies, last was a 98" span Lanc, the Sunderland is 80", and I once built a 132" span flying wing, (three piece wing admittedly). As they say, "it's not how big it is, it's what you do with it that counts".

But damn, I'm still envious

Ray.

[Steve T]

No I use the long hose on Henry Hoover for ceiling cobwebs and the cat generally pick up all other detritus on her fur, so it is usually quite clean and tidy. And here are pics of old man refuge and new man hide out!

[Steve T]

New home! And now it must be time for The Wright Stuff to please reclaim his posting!

[The Wright Stuff]

Thanks Steve!

So back to the Spitfire! It was a little fiddly to fettle the fittings (try saying that quickly over and over! ) all back together, hence the delayed update, but I'm quite pleased with the result. When refitting the new retract, I raked forward the lowered undercarriage to try to minimise the dreaded nose-over on take off, without having to move the CofG too far backwards. I glued spacer pieces over the mounting lugs to allow the retract to sit at an angle, and replaced the two screws on the packed side with longer ones as necessary. The total packing height was approximately 6 mm.

It was then necessary to shave a little foam away from the side of the retract slot, in order to allow the motor unit to fully sit down in its tilted orientation. Hopefully the photographs adequately show the end result. The E-flite motor units are a little less deep than the Dynam counterparts. This, together with the packing added, means that there is plenty of room beneath the unit to neatly pack away the wiring (and in my case, a mated plug and socket). The spacing of the mounting holes for the E-flite retracts is almost-but-not-quite-the-same as the Dynam ones: there are a couple of millimetres discrepancy in the transverse direction, so I opened out the holes a little with some gentle drilling. Had I had a little more time, it probably would have been better to slot them, but to be honest for a bird of this weight, it's not going to make much difference.

The photograph shows the net result when the undercarriage is deployed: the change in stance may be appreciated by comparing the port wheel (nearest the camera) with the starboard one (in the background), which had not yet been replaced when I took the photo.

The final stage was to adjust the retracted position, which is consequently twisted very slightly compared to the unmodified retract to avoid any excessive toe-in with the gear down. I needed to shave a very small amount of foam from the wheel well and along the linear bay where the leg sits. It was just a millimetre or so, but the white foam showing up from under the blue paint captures this quite well in the photograph.

To get the undercarriage door to sit flat and flush with the bottom of the wing, it was necessary to thin down the plastic spacers that come with the Dynam kit, to separate the gear doors from the simulated hydraulics moulding. A couple of plastic washers can be used to tilt the door to the correct plane to sit flush with the wing bottom.

It's a slight compromise because it means that the doors are not totally parallel with the wheels when lowered (the doors have a touch of toe-in) but I'm reasonably pleased with the result - I think this is the best that can be achieved without macroscopic butchering of the wheel wells and undercarriage position in the wing, which was something I was keen to avoid.

Edited By The Wright Stuff on 09/03/2015 13:36:18

[Colin Leighfield]

Well done WS, although I think you've persuaded me that fitting the Dynam legs into the Eflite retracts was the easy way out! All they needed was a slight forward rake and that was it. I'm sure that your end-result will be worth it though.

Edited By Colin Leighfield on 09/03/2015 17:43:39

[The Wright Stuff]

Thanks Colin. I think in hindsight I agree with you: it would have been a lot easier, and just as good. I guess that's why I'm writing this up, so others can see the options and make their own decisions. The only reason I chose against that route was because I couldn't figure out a neat method to reattach the gear doors, since the mounting points collided with the retract housing and hence they would have had to have been cut off. Maybe E-Flite have changed the design? Not sure!

The main fear I have with my chosen method is that the bend near to the coil will want to unbend itself over time (and with heavy landings). Time will tell, although I will keep the original Dynam legs in case I want to rework it in the future...

[The Wright Stuff]

Looking back at my original 'wish list', the final item apart from the re-paint job was to fabricate modesty covers for the bottom of the wings, to cover up the servos, the wiring channels, clean up the surface where the foam pieces join, and maybe even add a tad of strength.

At this point of the build I can hear everybody crying: "What about the weight?" so I tried to keep it sensible. My main motivation is really a personal preference. My flying style is simple: I'm just perfectly happy to watch my aircraft do lazy circuits overhead - I fly to relax and appreciate scale type flying. I'm not really so interested in vertical performance - not that there's anything wrong with that of course! Obviously, when in the air and in level flight, it is the bottom of the aircraft that presents the view to us during those low slow fly-bys. Maybe with flaps down, but now I'm indulging myself. My point is that I want the bottom of the wing to look almost as tidy as the top, and I'm prepared to sacrifice a wee bit of performance to achieve that.

I could have used paper, card, plastic sheet, but I felt most comfortable with wood, so I bought some 1/64th plywood to do the job. After I'd had a sit down upon learning the price (it's not cheap, is it? Seems to get more expensive the thinner you go!), I fashioned a template out of 'cereal packet' card first. The advantage of doing this was a learned result of a winter spent laying vinyl floor tiles - needing to cut them to shape for the twiddly corner bits. It means you can stick a piece back on when you inevitably cut too much off, and you can cut fiddly shapes at opposite ends completely independently, before then sticking it together in the middle.

When and only when I'd got the shape right, I drew around it and cut it out of the wood. The two pieces are not quite symmetrical, since for some unfathomable reason there seems to be a millimetre or two difference in the moulded panel lines on the wings (I aligned the edges of the covers with the lines to better hide the joins). The slots for the flap servo arms are also in different relative positions (i.e. not exact mirror images). The pieces weighed about 6-7 grams each. I've no idea how to calculate whether the cleaner lines of the wing provide any extra lift, but this seemed to be an acceptable number to me.

I sanded the edges to provide a slight bevel, and then used cyano to glue them to the foam wing panel around the edges. The theory being that if I ever need to get it back off to access the servos or wiring, I should be able to run a sharp knife around it and get it off fairly cleanly.

I promise you, this is all going to look a lot better soon, after a rub down and some paint!

[Colin Leighfield]

You've seen the Dynam Spitfire as a blank canvas and really gone to town on it, it shows what you can do with a bog-standard foamie and turned it into something which is special and very specifically yours. Who could criticise that? You've done a great job. It's a very sound design with excellent flying characteristics and a good facsimile of a Spitfire IX in most respects, so is an excellent candidate for the kind of enhancement that you have gone for.

On mine I have set the wing cannons in the "E" wing format, outboard. However that was a later option, the change being associated with the replacement of the 4x.303 Brownings with 2x 0.5s. A Spitfire like that would have also possessed a rudder with the pointed top, so I think I might alter mine. The other change I'm interested in is to clip the wing-tips and then it will be a Mk LF IX9e. One of the 1001 things to do I seem to have lined up at the moment!

[Steve T]

I now really wish I had done all this and more before I hastily assembled my two Dynam Spits. Not such and easy job to disassemble and start again, I have four builds on the go, and a rather complex (bought as part built) Blenhiem rebuild to attack, Warbirds Spit should be here this month ready for next autumn/winter building. Having said all that...here we go, take them down from the ceiling and hit the work bench. You shall accept the blame Mr. Wright !

Edited By Steve T on 10/03/2015 14:09:35

[The Wright Stuff]

One at a time, Steve, surely!

[Steve T]

I always preached 'anything for an easy life' then completely disregarded my own advice...oh dear!

[The Wright Stuff]

Okay, but just remember that mine hasn't flown, yet, so is somewhat unproven, especially the dihedral! I see no reason why it shouldn't work, but I just thought I'd get the disclaimer in now!

[The Wright Stuff]

Well, I've been forging on with finishing the wing. There was a fair amount of tidying up to do before painting: proper planning and prepararation and all those P's.....

After I'd filled, sanded and primered the modified parts, what I had wasn't exactly pretty. While I always think it's a travesty to paint a beautiful wooden built-up structure, when it's a mess of filler, foam and wood like this, it's a huge relief to hide it all under some paint! First job was to paint the wheel wells. Scouring the web for the appropriate colours left me none the wiser: I gather at various points the Mk 9's wells were painted silver, green, or the underside grey colour. Unless one is modelling a particular protoype at a particular point in time, then all three are probably valid options. I chose silver (or aluminium, to be pedantic)!

The invasion stripes I defined using a mix of mask/spray and brush finishing, depending on the area. I used the yellow 'delicate surface' Frog tape, which seems to work pretty well.

Edited By The Wright Stuff on 23/03/2015 18:50:34

[The Wright Stuff]

Suitably encouraged, the black went on pretty quickly. I used acrylic with a satin finish, which covers pretty well. A little bit of touching up was required on the bleeds, but nothing too major...

Of course, everyone loves putting the decals on!!!

So, getting there. From about a three foot stand-off, it doesn't look like a foamie anymore, which I guess was broadly my aim! Quite a few details to go: the yellow leading edge flashes, painting undercarriage doors, and adding cannons, but I thought I'd share my progress so far!

[Ronos]

Just joined the forum and found your thread,a fantastic and interesting thread. Can I ask what is the internal diameter off the fibre glass rod that hold the wings together,fancy doing it my Spitfire.

[The Wright Stuff]

Hi Ronald,

Thank you for your kind comments, and I am glad you are enjoying the thread. Don't let the timescales put you off - I am taking my time with this one: if you devoted more time to it than me, you could probably do all this in a couple of weeks.

I'm afraid I didn't precisely measure the internal diameter - it's a little under 6 mm. I started with a steel rod that was exactly 6.00 mm and tickled it down until it was a snug fit. Just be careful not to make it too tight a fit, since the fibre glass rod is quite brittle in the radial direction and may split if you force it.

Good luck, and I look forward to seeing your results!

[Ronos]

Thanks for getting back too my question. I am not going all the way with mine,just fancied changing the angle on the wing,it looks a bit flat at 3%. Keep up the good work.

[The Wright Stuff]

Well, while I'm waiting for all that paint to dry () I thought I'd think ahead to painting the fuselage. I have some uncertainty about the fuselage invasion stripes, and I wondered if any of you had come across this question before, specifically here in the context of Spitfire markings.

As I understand it, the 'full' (top and bottom) stripes schemes were ordered removed from the upper surfaces of aircraft within a month of the D-Day invasion. Presumably, this was because they were vulnerable on the ground when they were operating from airfields in liberated France. They were totally removed by the end of 1944 - I guess by that time the Americans knew what a Spitfire looked like!

Anyway, that's quite a narrow time window in which to model my PL344, but there seems to be quite a bit of variation in the application of the 'half stripes' scheme to the fuselage. Googling for images under "Spitfire Invasion Stripes" brings up a whole host of subtle variants, although not many archive photos are available from this period.

Here, the stripes are extended above the grey underside defining line, but stop short of the roundels and run parallel to the bottom of the code letters. The stripes are ahead of the 'sky' tail band.

Here, the stripes intersect the tail band, and extend up into the roundel centre line, but sits behind it. These also appear to be narrower than the standard 18 inches for single engine fighters.

Here, the stripes run under the roundel itself.

Now, I'm cautious because almost all of the photos I have are from either preserved aircraft or other's models. I've gone through all my Spitfire books and can't find any genuine 1944 photos of the half-stripe livery, I guess because it was relatively short lived. I'm guessing here, but I suspect it might depend upon whether the Spits were delivered freshly painted in this scheme, or whether it was previously a full-stripe scheme that was subsequently painted out at the top. A web search revealed that PL344 was built by Vickers-Armstrong at Castle Bromwich in early 1944. She was delivered to 8 Maintenance Unit on March 1st. After a short period of storage she was delivered to 602 Sqn (Squadron) on August, 24 1944, so presumably never carried full stripes.

I guess my default will be to copy the first photo, of PL344, but I'd be interested in any background information, if it's available. They might be small (maybe even geeky!!!) details, but in my opinion, it has quite a big visual impact on the side of the plane, so it would be nice to get it right.

Cheers,

TWS

[Steve T]

Look what you have done! I've taken down the standard (silly blue colour) Dynam Spit and I'm going to dismantle it and start all over again. Why not I have nearly almost nothing else to do......apart from all the other builds and trying to find time to fly. Well done, your post has really got me going, good stuff mate!

[Ronos]

Posted by The Wright Stuff on 18/08/2014 13:31:10:

Finally, the ends were bevelled, so not to scratch the inside of the wing joining tube.

And the completed dihedral brace compared with the original template:

Hi TWS, could you explain something please. What is the finished angle, is the bar bent to 3degs,because the original angle is 3 deg so that's 3+3= 6, or do I bend it to 6 deg. In the top picture the bar is at 3 degs.

[The Wright Stuff]

Yes. Top picture is the angle of the bar. Bottom is the angle of the finished wing. Remember that the bar is 3 degrees from the horizontal on BOTH sides, so that's a total bend of 6 degrees in the centre.

[Dave Hopkin]

Invasion Stripes - As I understand it they were applied at squadron level rather than applied at the factory, they were authorised on the 17th May 44 but were not to be applied to aircraft until the 3rd June (apart from a few test aircraft that were used for troop familirisation) - the original order specified all round stripes but this was countermanded at the end of June to remove all but the stripes on the lower surfaces, full removal was ordered by the end of 44

If you look at the photos many many of the stripes are anything but neat! as they were simply painted on by Squadron Erks immediately before the invasion and few used any form of masking for painting

[Ronos]

Thanks TWS, am on it now, but tell me. Have you flown it with the alterations, if not do you think it will make any difference to the performance of the aircraft