as above dont expect it to be pretty im using 3 cheap and nasty pm model kits
teasing... :thumbsup: tell us more, tell us more... (someday) ;)
a triple spit ?!? waaahh ... :thumbsup:
cheap and nasty does it : it makes you even more free ;)
Quote from: ericr on March 10, 2013, 10:59:22 AM
a triple spit ?!? waaahh ... :thumbsup:
cheap and nasty does it : it makes you even more free ;)
the wingspan is coming in at about 70 feet atm lol iv got to work out how to reduce that without binning the guns in the wings
REDUCING the wing span??? Pure sacrilage! :o
Quote from: PR19_Kit on March 10, 2013, 02:05:40 PM
REDUCING the wing span??? Pure sacrilage! :o
its 70feet atm!! :lol:
Quote from: PR19_Kit on March 10, 2013, 02:12:10 PM
Quote from: eatthis on March 10, 2013, 02:10:43 PM
Quote from: PR19_Kit on March 10, 2013, 02:05:40 PM
REDUCING the wing span??? Pure sacrilage! :o
its 70feet atm!! :lol:
70 ft? A mere bagatelle........ ;D
you dont think a spitfire with a 70ft wingspan would cause issues? it certainly looks daft haha
Quote from: PR19_Kit on March 10, 2013, 02:05:40 PM
REDUCING the wing span??? Pure sacrilage! :o
LOL....I love it !
Interested to see what you have come up with.
:cheers:
How many booms to the rear and how many to the front? :blink:
Quote from: Go4fun on March 10, 2013, 03:14:44 PM
How many booms to the rear and how many to the front? :blink:
3 front not sure if 2 or 3 at the back yet
Quote from: eatthis on March 10, 2013, 03:15:42 PM
Quote from: Go4fun on March 10, 2013, 03:14:44 PM
How many booms to the rear and how many to the front? :blink:
3 front not sure if 2 or 3 at the back yet
OMG! :o THIS I have to watch!
Quote from: eatthis on March 10, 2013, 02:32:32 PM
you dont think a spitfire with a 70ft wingspan would cause issues? it certainly looks daft haha
Apart from stopping it from flying into orbit, no.
Daft? Not in the slightest, the longer the span the better they look, and that goes for ALL aircraft!
Quote from: PR19_Kit on March 10, 2013, 03:51:27 PM
Quote from: eatthis on March 10, 2013, 02:32:32 PM
you dont think a spitfire with a 70ft wingspan would cause issues? it certainly looks daft haha
Apart from stopping it from flying into orbit, no.
Daft? Not in the slightest, the longer the span the better they look, and that goes for ALL aircraft!
:lol: are you serious huge wingspan relative to length wont cause problems?
i doubt a good trait of an escort fighter is a roll rate you need a sundial to measure
Quote from: eatthis on March 10, 2013, 03:52:11 PM
:lol: are you serious huge wingspan relative to length wont cause problems?
i doubt a good trait of an escort fighter is a roll rate you need a sundial to measure
My signature isn't there for fun you know.
Quote from: PR19_Kit on March 10, 2013, 03:58:42 PM
Quote from: eatthis on March 10, 2013, 03:52:11 PM
:lol: are you serious huge wingspan relative to length wont cause problems?
i doubt a good trait of an escort fighter is a roll rate you need a sundial to measure
My signature isn't there for fun you know.
i thought it was :lol:
i assumed it would help some things (wing loading and high altatude performance) and hinder others (like speed and roll rate)
Quote from: eatthis on March 10, 2013, 04:00:03 PM
i thought it was :lol:
i assumed it would help some things (wing loading and high altatude performance) and hinder others (like speed and roll rate)
You missed out how GOOD long wings look as well. Or in today's vernacular, 'cool'........... ;D
Actually span doesn't have as much effect on speed as you might think. There's only a small increase in drag and usually the wing is more efficient just because of it's greater span.
Quote from: PR19_Kit on March 10, 2013, 06:07:17 PM
Quote from: eatthis on March 10, 2013, 04:00:03 PM
i thought it was :lol:
i assumed it would help some things (wing loading and high altatude performance) and hinder others (like speed and roll rate)
You missed out how GOOD long wings look as well. Or in today's vernacular, 'cool'........... ;D
Actually span doesn't have as much effect on speed as you might think. There's only a small increase in drag and usually the wing is more efficient just because of it's greater span.
trust me this just looks silly :lol:
You have to remember that Kit has a serious long-wing-thing going on..... ;D
Quote from: Weaver on March 11, 2013, 05:27:12 AM
You have to remember that Kit has a serious long-wing-thing going on..... ;D
compensating? ;D
not at all happy with the layout yet
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi49.tinypic.com%2Fzmk0sn.jpg&hash=4a95e273d4623c10936e05e588149b9ad417eb01)
Wow! I am happy! :thumbsup:
Quote from: Weaver on March 11, 2013, 05:27:12 AM
You have to remember that Kit has a serious long-wing-thing going on..... ;D
Who? Me? :o
theres some serious work to do on this before its any good
Are you going for a triple engine/triple boom, or a P-38 style twin boom with crew nacelle?
Will it be a single seater, or will it have multiple crew members?
I had a quick go at getting a triple boom Spitfire.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8532%2F8551539664_0646b3c318_z.jpg&hash=0fe1b6903649075d30fc1a94f873d6828b596bff)
The source image was from http://www.the-blueprints.com/
It looks a bit out of proportion, but with 8 20mm it would have plenty of firepower!
I did 2/3 of that already......... ;D
http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=2285 (http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=2285)
Quote from: PR19_Kit on March 11, 2013, 05:43:20 PM
Quote from: Weaver on March 11, 2013, 05:27:12 AM
You have to remember that Kit has a serious long-wing-thing going on..... ;D
Who? Me? :o
Just because everyone else goes for stub wings...............
Incidentally, I seem to recall a multi company airliner with a suitable length of
fuselage a little while ago.
Quote from: Rheged on March 12, 2013, 05:34:54 AM
Incidentally, I seem to recall a multi company airliner with a suitable length of fuselage a little while ago.
Hm, yes, but sometimes I get things a bit wrong............ ;)
Might I suggest you bring the fuselages closer together & reduce the number of guns between each to 2, rather than 4 (not remove them). Which still gives you 8 x 20mm cannon. Which brings more of the mass of the aircraft closer to the central roll axis.
Also, I'd suggest extending the outer wings slightly & increasing the size of the ailerons, so they move more air. Than should fix your roll rate problem pretty well.
Oh! ... & remove the outer cockpits & spines (selecting a later model Spit might have been a better starting point for that, though).
My cent's worth.
:cheers:
Guy
Have you seen also Vostoc7's http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,23254.0.html ?
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kristofmeunier.fr%2Fsupermarine%2520m2.JPG&hash=259c0f747d4d2b724a9217e7877b07902d6e8a26)
you have all my support for this job!
If it can give a little inspiration, here are two triples I made (one is a triple triplane) :
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1274.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fy435%2Fericr63%2Fhyd%2Ftriplan-triple-s_zps8c01f59c.jpg&hash=072e8527440ca1967686c544d0e82e7714155993)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1274.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fy435%2Fericr63%2Fhyd%2Fp38-triple-s_zpsb23cb457.jpg&hash=463659159eb15b258fe29a2f791f5d6505deda2b)
Quote from: ericr on March 12, 2013, 10:08:57 AM
you have all my support for this job!
If it can give a little inspiration, here are two triples I made (one is a triple triplane) :
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1274.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fy435%2Fericr63%2Fhyd%2Ftriplan-triple-s_zps8c01f59c.jpg&hash=072e8527440ca1967686c544d0e82e7714155993)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1274.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fy435%2Fericr63%2Fhyd%2Fp38-triple-s_zpsb23cb457.jpg&hash=463659159eb15b258fe29a2f791f5d6505deda2b)
Do they have a vote before making course corrections? :o
im thinking of making nearly that!
make the centre prop a pusher and have a nose full of bang sticks
Almost like this without the central tractive engine?
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kristofmeunier.fr%2FSpitfireV7B.JPG&hash=89c7da47529ee278a087e361763f9733d4e728f5)
Quote from: Tophe on March 12, 2013, 10:16:55 AM
Almost like this without the central tractive engine?
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kristofmeunier.fr%2FSpitfireV7B.JPG&hash=89c7da47529ee278a087e361763f9733d4e728f5)
soty of but only centre fuse has a pit in it
3, THREE cockpits? How many pilot, how many navigate and who is in charge of tea? :blink:
Quote from: Go4fun on March 12, 2013, 12:10:39 PM
3, THREE cockpits? How many pilot, how many navigate and who is in charge of tea? :blink:
only 1 pit only 1 crew and the teasmade is a new fangled automatic jobby
Quote from: Go4fun on March 12, 2013, 10:11:23 AM
Do they have a vote before making course corrections? :o
the advantage of three votes is that you always get a clear majority ;D
Quote from: Go4fun on March 12, 2013, 12:10:39 PM
3, THREE cockpits? How many pilot, how many navigate and who is in charge of tea? :blink:
what about passengers? wouldn't you like being one? ;)
Quote from: ericr on March 12, 2013, 02:58:24 PM
Quote from: Go4fun on March 12, 2013, 10:11:23 AM
Do they have a vote before making course corrections? :o
the advantage of three votes is that you always get a clear majority ;D
Not if one abstains :rolleyes:
Quote from: NARSES2 on March 13, 2013, 08:26:28 AM
Quote from: ericr on March 12, 2013, 02:58:24 PM
Quote from: Go4fun on March 12, 2013, 10:11:23 AM
Do they have a vote before making course corrections? :o
the advantage of three votes is that you always get a clear majority ;D
Not if one abstains :rolleyes:
no abstention allowed!
Quote from: ericr on March 13, 2013, 10:27:02 AM
Quote from: NARSES2 on March 13, 2013, 08:26:28 AM
Quote from: ericr on March 12, 2013, 02:58:24 PM
Quote from: Go4fun on March 12, 2013, 10:11:23 AM
Do they have a vote before making course corrections? :o
the advantage of three votes is that you always get a clear majority ;D
Not if one abstains :rolleyes:
no abstention allowed!
abstenees (abstenists??) will be shot imagine a 3 way pistol dual with the pilots :lol:
"Hansz to Fritz: Vat en der name of Goot iz going on vith dat veird aircraften? Ere they shooting at each utter vit der pistols"? :o :blink: :D
imagine how far they would have to lead their targets with pistol rounds!
im thinking make the inner wing angle like a corsair?
this would lift the centre fuse for better visibility and keeps the prop off the deck
got 4 cannons in the nose and either 2 or 4 in the inner wings so 6-8 total
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi45.tinypic.com%2F21omrfl.jpg&hash=7835e7d38d29b308259784cd18e4c59317baef06)
Good thinking!
Great! Congratulations! :thumbsup:
option 2 is to put the wings through the centre of the outer fuselages instead of the bottom
I like the Corsair wing idea better. Do you have - or can you make - straight pieces of wing for the inner sections?
I think keeping the inner sections as short as possible would look cool, as long as the propellers stay away from the pilot pod.
... one of the fuselages could have a rear gunner ...
Which landing gears are you keeping?
Quote from: perttime on March 17, 2013, 02:38:35 AM
I like the Corsair wing idea better. Do you have - or can you make - straight pieces of wing for the inner sections?
I think keeping the inner sections as short as possible would look cool, as long as the propellers stay away from the pilot pod.
... one of the fuselages could have a rear gunner ...
Which landing gears are you keeping?
inner wings will be as short as possible to keep the mass as close to centre as possible
il have to make the wing by sandwiching plasticard together and sand it all down :(
no gunners
still not 100% settled on gears yet 2 options atm are use the outer stock gears (bit highly stressed though) or have a big wheel go stright up into each outer fuse in the wing root which would be stronger but much more work
im thinking option 2 atm
Landing gears in the fuselages sounds like a good idea to me, as long as you don't mind the "work". Retracting towards the rear?
Radiators probably have to go in the normal places under the wings, unless there's some space remaining in the fuselages.
this gives you the idea of the general layout
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi48.tinypic.com%2F29mnfdl.jpg&hash=ac2ec6160e4dfe01c6c4b5573f6d907ca983eb99)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi48.tinypic.com%2F16j31x4.jpg&hash=401a9d4ec07bcfe402ddfdd27ddf6539e2e35afe)
the centre wing angle is too steep atm it looks bloody stupid lol
I would not say stupid but funny, very funny, very what-if... like a rejected design from a drunk designer... I love it :wub:
flip the outer spits upside down?
Reduce the angle or borrow from a Vought Corsair?
Quote from: nighthunter on March 17, 2013, 03:37:11 PM
Reduce the angle or borrow from a Vought Corsair?
dont have a corsair but i will reduce the angle
with a slight angle reduction it will look gorgeous!
Maybe anhedral like the Lippisch X-114 WIG?
http://www.nurflugel.com/Nurflugel/Lippisch_Nurflugels/Aerofoil_Flying_Boats/body_aerofoil_flying_boats.html
eatthis, I have an idea for you.
Honestly, more work but possibly a better result &, maybe, an easier beginning to fuselage mounted main gear.
1. Cut vertically fore & aft of the wing-roots to about mid-way up the fuselage.
2. Cut horizontally between these cuts to remove the wing-roots & fuselage section.
3. Remove fuselage section above the wing-roots from the cut-out section(s).
4. Replace wing roots into hole in fuselage(s), lifting to meet upper cut line.
5. Glue in place & shim as necessary to meet fuselage cross-section.
Possible benefits;
a. This will (theoretically speaking) raise the main wing spar to where it can be used for your fuselage-mounted main gears & give you a start on the main gear wells.
b. Also, if you move the existing wing root to the outer edge of the fuselage & only shim the inside, this will give you a good wing root out from the boom fuselages & bring the inner root in flush (hopefully) to the boom so that it doesn't stick out & look out of place when the dihedral wing stub is connected. (You may want to think about angling down the central tub wing-roots, too, so they match the wing stub angle.)
Just a couple of ideas for free. ;)
:cheers:
Guy
iv thought abouth mounting the wings on the top of the outer fuselages instead of the bottom i might not need any anhedral on the inner winner wing at all if i did that
im still sleepy and cant get my head around point b lol what do you mean by it?
Quote from: Old Wombat on March 17, 2013, 09:14:09 PM
b. Also, if you move the existing wing root to the outer edge of the fuselage & only shim the inside, this will give you a good wing root out from the boom fuselages & bring the inner root in flush (hopefully) to the boom so that it doesn't stick out & look out of place when the dihedral wing stub is connected. (You may want to think about angling down the central tub wing-roots, too, so they match the wing stub angle.)
OK, the fuselage at the wing roots is narrower (even if not by much) than the fuselage higher up. By ensuring that the outer cuts line up against each other this will leave you with the full wing root out from the booms & you will only need to shim the inner side of the boom fuselage to the full width. Also, as you have effectively moved the whole wing root outwards there is a smaller section of wing root protruding in from the boom, thus meaning less work blending the new inner wing stub into the boom &, therefore, less drag.
Angles in the wing create drag, the more bends the more drag.
The alternative to what I have given you in the previous post is to line both inner & outer wing root sections with the boom fuselage & have a (relatively) straight wing (this would be
my preferred option as there is less work involved). The final result would look a bit more like a P-38 Lightning but, still, quite unique.
Also, just to be a pest, don't forget that the wing roots (as they are are designed to) angle the wings slightly upwards but a bit of sanding should fix most of that & a little angling of the inner wing stubs should be easy enough.
I would draw some pictures of what I'm trying to explain but I'm 4,300 km away from my printer/scanner at the moment &, effectively wont be nearer to it until mid-June.
Perhaps someone else could assist? Please? :unsure:
:cheers:
Guy
PS: Just thinking about this.... You might consider keeping the dihedral of the existing wing roots on the booms & simply angle the central tub wing roots down to match what already exists coming up from the booms! (Much easier!) I'd still raise the wing roots up to about the mid-line of the booms, though.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi49.tinypic.com%2F2a4snle.jpg&hash=7db60a9040c1bcf2aeec0eb72f23880f2334ce14)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi49.tinypic.com%2F2qw3egx.jpg&hash=6eab55bb3c5fb4c24bdecc1a89e5fe7b0205da53)
i can use a flat centre wing now and sit the centre fuse on top of it this will raise it
Is the centre fuselage still the same, for the cockpit? it looks like a bubble-canopy one, from another kit?
Old Wombat: I am willing to draw everything (all versions, not the final choice of eatthis only), but it is hard to understand, sorry.
i couldnt really understand him either lol
the front is a drop tank (bloody usefull things for a whiffer) the main fuse is a mk22 spitfire low back with a bubble canopy
Thanks for these explanations
basic layout will be this
the elevator will be full width between the outer fuselages im not sure wether to extend it to the outside or not (atm im thinking no)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi46.tinypic.com%2F2j4xa80.jpg&hash=3a50a247fef80e653ebb9e97e8d6f0508ce0ed86)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi46.tinypic.com%2F1hpj74.jpg&hash=57b45fa1a85b39a796f406516eb3250751dfc0b1)
Simplified sketches.
I'd like to add Old Wombat's ones, of course.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kristofmeunier.fr%2Fr_Spitfire_g.JPG&hash=11c3827abd2fefaee070161ae62048813932e8f2)
I like this last design change. More 'clean' air for the rear prop and a better view for the pilot.
number 3 is nearly spot on fella :)
the nose is longer and the whole centre fuse sits a little further forward :)
i might alter my nose a bit yet anyway lol
number 2 has something special, I like it
Eatthis,
You might bear in mind the thrust line of your center engine. Putting it significantly out of line with the other two engines might make handling the bird a tad... problematic. Putting the cockpit higher than the boom fuselages though would enhance the visibility from the office though. While fairing the difference between the lowered engine and the raised cockpit might be more of a challenge it could also add the look of the bird.
Quote from: Madoc on March 19, 2013, 10:58:47 PM
Eatthis,
You might bear in mind the thrust line of your center engine. Putting it significantly out of line with the other two engines might make handling the bird a tad... problematic. Putting the cockpit higher than the boom fuselages though would enhance the visibility from the office though. While fairing the difference between the lowered engine and the raised cockpit might be more of a challenge it could also add the look of the bird.
il take that on board fella il see if iv got the prop clearence to drop it
The Bratu 220 did fly http://forum.avionslegendaires.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4902 with engines at different heights. Maybe other ones too... What's the problem about them?
Tophe,
Different center of thrust lines for the different engines. The Bratu 220's were all at least aligned on one plane, the vertical in this case. Having those different thrust lines makes things more complex for matching the center of gravity with the center of lift with the center of thrust. Trimming the bird out would also be more involved as would any weight changes as the aircraft draws down its fuel or looses its payload, etc.,. Not impossible, just more difficult.
Thanks for that explanation! :thumbsup:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi45.tinypic.com%2F302z7tt.jpg&hash=60d9daf4a6bd2d84aefd3c963144ea60fff51094)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi48.tinypic.com%2F309otx5.jpg&hash=7bffb8fb2fd5b54630d56a50092bf333d55b0894)
il fair the pit into the rear engine and its almost inline with the ohter engines now
i MIGHT shorten the nose too dunno yet
Good transformation!
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kristofmeunier.fr%2Fr_Spitfire_i.JPG&hash=41672663129251b7b05c042cfac241502c7391ff)
Quote from: Tophe on March 21, 2013, 09:50:43 AM
Good transformation!
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kristofmeunier.fr%2Fr_Spitfire_i.JPG&hash=41672663129251b7b05c042cfac241502c7391ff)
very nice mate :bow:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi48.tinypic.com%2Fvr61a9.jpg&hash=4685797efdc18192a743e36151fe1fc193837c36)
Eatthis,
Another thing you could, although it might be too late in your build process now, is to put a truly big engine in the center pod. Something of a whole heckuvalot more horsepower than the other two. That engine would only be fired up at takeoff / landings and for high speed dashes. Otherwise, the two wing mounted engines would bear the - more efficient - load of getting the bird from A to B.
That might ease the fairing job.
Boy that's neat ! Looking forward to seeing some more !
:cheers:
Quote from: Madoc on March 22, 2013, 02:56:13 PM
Eatthis,
Another thing you could, although it might be too late in your build process now, is to put a truly big engine in the center pod. Something of a whole heckuvalot more horsepower than the other two. That engine would only be fired up at takeoff / landings and for high speed dashes. Otherwise, the two wing mounted engines would bear the - more efficient - load of getting the bird from A to B.
That might ease the fairing job.
a great big radial beasty?
it crossed my mind breifly at the start but i rapidly changed my mind because iv got nothing else im willing to chop up lol
the centre pod is looking alot like an early f1 car now lol
Quote from: eatthis on March 22, 2013, 03:26:55 PM
Quote from: Madoc on March 22, 2013, 02:56:13 PM
Eatthis,
Another thing you could, although it might be too late in your build process now, is to put a truly big engine in the center pod. Something of a whole heckuvalot more horsepower than the other two. That engine would only be fired up at takeoff / landings and for high speed dashes. Otherwise, the two wing mounted engines would bear the - more efficient - load of getting the bird from A to B.
That might ease the fairing job.
a great big radial beasty?
it crossed my mind breifly at the start but i rapidly changed my mind because iv got nothing else im willing to chop up lol
So:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kristofmeunier.fr%2Fr_Spitfire_j.JPG&hash=4d0e29a11c33c30d7d2a1f5564f5ffbae1bfe0a6)
Quote from: Tophe on March 23, 2013, 05:34:30 AM
Quote from: eatthis on March 22, 2013, 03:26:55 PM
Quote from: Madoc on March 22, 2013, 02:56:13 PM
Eatthis,
Another thing you could, although it might be too late in your build process now, is to put a truly big engine in the center pod. Something of a whole heckuvalot more horsepower than the other two. That engine would only be fired up at takeoff / landings and for high speed dashes. Otherwise, the two wing mounted engines would bear the - more efficient - load of getting the bird from A to B.
That might ease the fairing job.
a great big radial beasty?
it crossed my mind breifly at the start but i rapidly changed my mind because iv got nothing else im willing to chop up lol
So:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kristofmeunier.fr%2Fr_Spitfire_j.JPG&hash=4d0e29a11c33c30d7d2a1f5564f5ffbae1bfe0a6)
that looks mean as hell!!
im a little bit stuck now i think im gonna need some kind of jig to line all 3 fuselages up properly because theyr a bit too free
Think Blu-Tack...........
Quote from: PR19_Kit on March 29, 2013, 07:07:32 AM
Think Blu-Tack...........
tried that its not strong enough
the booms are glued to the centre section but the props and outer wings are just shoved on for the pics
3 griffons + contrarotating props + 8x20mm cannons = VERY fast VERY nasty fighterplane
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi48.tinypic.com%2Ffpb4tv.jpg&hash=aeb46d41ba88817d1f1461bd1807307ccaa99fb6)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi46.tinypic.com%2Fndtrgk.jpg&hash=60f3365956bfa2ac758d27519f3ebb2bed9628b1)
Looking good...... :thumbsup:
Wow! Reno's pylons are shivering... :thumbsup:
Quote from: Tophe on April 06, 2013, 04:01:16 PM
Wow! Reno's pylons are shivering... :thumbsup:
:lol: do they have a multi engined class?
Quote from: eatthis on April 07, 2013, 02:01:27 AM
Quote from: Tophe on April 06, 2013, 04:01:16 PM
Wow! Reno's pylons are shivering... :thumbsup:
:lol: do they have a multi engined class?
Engine count doesn't matter in the Unlimited class. A few twin engined fighters participate OK (but don't win).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1kkilBoA3I
Quote from: perttime on April 07, 2013, 02:57:29 AM
Quote from: eatthis on April 07, 2013, 02:01:27 AM
Quote from: Tophe on April 06, 2013, 04:01:16 PM
Wow! Reno's pylons are shivering... :thumbsup:
:lol: do they have a multi engined class?
Engine count doesn't matter in the Unlimited class. A few twin engined fighters participate OK (but don't win).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1kkilBoA3I
i think a 7000hp+ spitfire might give it a go and thats before they modify the engines lol
High speed reminds me of the wing: better use a reinforced wing. Early Spitfires suffered from "aileron reversal" at high speeds: aileron control would twist the wing in the opposite direction, and result in rolling in the wrong direction :o
Also, I noticed that your wings still have the bumps for the wheels. Will you remove them or install something that explains their presence?
Quote from: perttime on April 07, 2013, 09:27:19 AM
High speed reminds me of the wing: better use a reinforced wing. Early Spitfires suffered from "aileron reversal" at high speeds: aileron control would twist the wing in the opposite direction, and result in rolling in the wrong direction :o
Also, I noticed that your wings still have the bumps for the wheels. Will you remove them or install something that explains their presence?
i know about the aileron reversel iv experianced it plenty of times on ww2 online chasing/avoiding 109s :lol:
the bumps are for the cannons and theyr probably staying probably for fuel :lol:
Ooops, I think I've been looking at too many late wing Spitfires recently: their gun bumps look smaller, and they do have the wheel bumps (wider tyres, I think).
Quote from: perttime on April 07, 2013, 09:58:20 AM
Ooops, I think I've been looking at too many late wing Spitfires recently: their gun bumps look smaller, and they do have the wheel bumps (wider tyres, I think).
correct
these are cheapo pm model kits so accuracy is a pipedream ;D
I cannot wait to see the finished a/c..... :thumbsup:
Quote from: Army of One on April 08, 2013, 11:47:08 PM
I cannot wait to see the finished a/c..... :thumbsup:
me neither its doing my head in now :lol:
Wierd! :thumbsup:
Max