HobbyKing.com New Products Flash Sale
Reply
Thread Tools
Old Jul 16, 2005, 06:58 PM
Registered User
dapple63's Avatar
Joined Jun 2005
1,033 Posts
Flyzone Spitfire

Been waiting too long for the Cox Models warbirds. Will get one when I get one.

In the meantime, I bought a Flyzone Spitfire this afternoon at the hobby shop. Paid $12.99. It is VERY nicely made, except for a freeflight model it is very heavy. The cg is also too far forward.

Still, it flys ok considering. The stock motor has good thrust and the nicad aint bad - I'm changin' 'em anyway.

So I'm going to do an RC conversion, but I'm trying to decide. Three channel with aileron, or two channel with speed and rudder only?

http://www.hobbico.com/airplanes/hcaa0232.html

Anybody already DO this? I did a quick thread search, but I didn't spend a lot of time looking.
dapple63 is offline Find More Posts by dapple63
Reply With Quote
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old Jul 17, 2005, 03:54 PM
Registered User
dapple63's Avatar
Joined Jun 2005
1,033 Posts
Hi, Dapple, I'm Dapple.

I've seen that no one has picked on your post and so I thought I'd chime in.

You're right. The Spitfire is too heavy as is. You can certainly use the Great Planes flight pack, but there's plenty of lighter gear out there.

It might ruin the scale, but this one would fly great with a small outrunner on it and lipo battery.

It needs the lower wing loading in order to work well. Still, don't skip the carbon in strategic areas; it'll need it. Especially if you want to use ailerons.

The wing isnt' really meant for ailerons. The wing that comes with the kit is beautiful, but it just isn't an aileron wing.
dapple63 is offline Find More Posts by dapple63
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 17, 2005, 03:58 PM
Its Falling With Style
comets8518's Avatar
Dallas
Joined Jan 2005
344 Posts
I think there are doctors that can prescribe medication to fix this

just kidding...although I am a little worried
comets8518 is offline Find More Posts by comets8518
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 17, 2005, 03:59 PM
Registered User
RNAF's Avatar
The Netherlands
Joined Dec 2003
2,307 Posts
ok this is the weirdest thread I've ever seen... you're scaring me
RNAF is offline Find More Posts by RNAF
RCG Plus Member
Old Jul 17, 2005, 04:01 PM
Registered User
dapple63's Avatar
Joined Jun 2005
1,033 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNAF
ok this is the weirdest thread I've ever seen... you're scaring me
There ARE other people out there! I'm not alone!
dapple63 is offline Find More Posts by dapple63
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 17, 2005, 05:44 PM
Registered User
RNAF's Avatar
The Netherlands
Joined Dec 2003
2,307 Posts
Even that needs the product your doctor could prescribe, like Comet said
RNAF is offline Find More Posts by RNAF
RCG Plus Member
Old Jul 17, 2005, 06:57 PM
Suspended Account
scratchandbash's Avatar
Grove City PA basement/park
Joined Feb 2005
4,884 Posts
I experimented with those Fly-Zones quite a bit. I have a ME-109, with Cirrus 4.4's, 2s-350 lipo, and DD 180 motor/GWS 5030 prop. Flys unbelievably well, for such a small airplane. The Zero flew well too, but was built a bit radical and was crashed. It had a DD Himax 2015-4100/GWS 5030 prop, small 7-cell Ni-Mh. The Spitfire was not a good flyer, in fact not a flyer at all. Probably the elliptical wings. I even wrote the magazine, who last year irresponsibly published a build article, without even flying the plane.
Go with the ME-109 or Zero. The Zero's thin cowl crushes more easily, however. The GP flight pack is a marginal rip-off. Use a 2s lipo around the 300mah range with a Castle Pixie-7. If your going to do a micro, you've gotta do it right. Not much margin on weight. Mine is about 5-1/4 oz, and flies on part throttle, as if it is a much larger and more powerful plane. Pretty impressive. Don't be do concerned with bench motor performance, as they unload quite a bit in the air.
By the way, you gave yourself pretty good advice there. Some of the best I have ever seen.
scratchandbash is offline Find More Posts by scratchandbash
Last edited by scratchandbash; Jul 17, 2005 at 06:59 PM. Reason: Add info
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 17, 2005, 07:20 PM
Registered User
dapple63's Avatar
Joined Jun 2005
1,033 Posts
Thanks, Scratch. I almost went for the Warhawk, but I'm a sucker for any Spitfire.

I went ahead and put it together FF because I am so impatient and because it seemed real heavy and cg forward (it is).

The heavy is just poor designing, but it has tremendous down-thrust. I'm guessing they built it to speed along and climb for the few seconds and then just float down nibbling at the stall.

Anyway, it flew great as a FF, which surprised me. It keeps it from getting too far, but it makes it a challenge to RC.

Thanks for the tips.
dapple63 is offline Find More Posts by dapple63
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 17, 2005, 11:32 PM
Rem The Wasp CV-7 9/15/42
SammyB's Avatar
Santa Clarita,CA
Joined Apr 2004
1,685 Posts
I left the stock downthrust in my zero and it was perfect. The description of it flying like a much larger plane at part throttle is right on the mark. I expected it to be all over the place but is rock solid stable with no tip stall tendencies at all, and it glides forever with the power off.
SammyB is offline Find More Posts by SammyB
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2005, 08:37 AM
Registered User
dapple63's Avatar
Joined Jun 2005
1,033 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by SammyB
I left the stock downthrust in my zero and it was perfect. The description of it flying like a much larger plane at part throttle is right on the mark. I expected it to be all over the place but is rock solid stable with no tip stall tendencies at all, and it glides forever with the power off.
Hmmmm. So you're thinking I should leave that much downthrust in the Spit? I guess I could start there first. It just seems quite radical.
dapple63 is offline Find More Posts by dapple63
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2005, 09:19 AM
Rem The Wasp CV-7 9/15/42
SammyB's Avatar
Santa Clarita,CA
Joined Apr 2004
1,685 Posts
I am only speaking from owning the zero. I replaced the stock 130 with a 180 but left the same amount of down thrust. Flew perfectly out of my hand from the first flight on. Even used the stock prop.
SammyB is offline Find More Posts by SammyB
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 19, 2005, 10:34 PM
Registered User
dapple63's Avatar
Joined Jun 2005
1,033 Posts
So I keep the 130 in and just quickly wire up the radio gear and actuator from a Wattage MicroFlyer (I have two and used the more ancient one). Just using the actuator to turn and not "on/off" power.

No, that's not the radio gear I would've chosen, and I'll probably still drop some super micro servos, receiver, and ESC in. I was pretty certain the actuator just wouldn't be sufficient to handle this model.

BUT......would you believe it flew great (only got about 2.5 to 3 minutes of flight)?

Don't have pics or video. I was by my lonesome, but it worked well. Far better than I would've predicted.

I'll still be better off with other stuff, but it was a fun and useful experiment.
dapple63 is offline Find More Posts by dapple63
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 21, 2005, 08:03 PM
Registered User
dapple63's Avatar
Joined Jun 2005
1,033 Posts
Not getting the times out of this bird, but flying is very easy and relaxing. Next stop. Pull the engine and radio gear and make it REALLY hum.

BTW - Looking at the dimensions, proportions, downthrust, and weight of the Spit and the P-40, the Hobbico birds seem suspicously close (if not identical) to the Cox Models birds.

I don't doubt the Cox and the Hobbico are both made overseas. Perhaps the same vendor?

Am I imagining this? Will I get eternally banished from RC Heaven for even thinking such a thing?
dapple63 is offline Find More Posts by dapple63
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Mini-Review Flyzone Spitfire Conversion Glu it again Sam Foamies (Kits) 4 Nov 24, 2008 12:42 PM