Originally Posted by Dora Nine

Pretty sure it'll need 4S. Also curious, that wing looks short and a little wide on the chord??

The MKXIV i beleive had a much thicker chord, and was a different shape. The spitfire wing went through numerous marks through its life. The later ones had thicker, stronger wings which were thicker to accomodate more fuel, ammo and cannons. The mkix onwards also had a longer fuselage, and the rudder got gradually bigger from the mkix onwards to counteract the torque from the bigger prop.
Will

Originally Posted by Dave Eichstedt

Looks pretty close to me!

Humm, maybe so according to that three view.In any case it'll be a must have for my hangar She's beggin to have the wings clipped.

Originally Posted by Thecheesemiester

That would be very, very inefficiant to make a scale prop, and the torque would be insane! The real griffin spits were very hard to takeoff straight, and torque has more effet on foamies as they are lighter, so it would ground loop instantly.
Will

I am not expecting them to make 100% scale props. I haven't really looked at the specs on the Spit, but on the P-51 and F4U4, they are the same wingspan, and use the props that FMS put on the old Durafly (1100mm) birds. 10.5 X 8. Scale for the Corsair would have been over 15" in dia. That is completely unreasonable, but there are many electric foamies out there with 12" props that seem to get it done within reason of both cost and flight characteristics. (Flightline Sea Fury for example) Even 1" larger in dia would make a noticeable difference to me. And I get it, this is only my opinion.

Originally Posted by Thecheesemiester

The MKXIV i beleive had a much thicker chord, and was a different shape. The spitfire wing went through numerous marks through its life. The later ones had thicker, stronger wings which were thicker to accomodate more fuel, ammo and cannons. The mkix onwards also had a longer fuselage, and the rudder got gradually bigger from the mkix onwards to counteract the torque from the bigger prop.
Will

No Will, the wing did not change until the Mk21. Mk1 through Mk19 had the same wing shape though the heavier, later aircraft had some structural and landing gear changes.

Originally Posted by Dora Nine

Pretty sure it'll need 4S. Also curious, that wing looks short and a little wide on the chord??

Thats what I was seeing too.

Placing this one on my list!

I stand corrected, although the armament in the wing did change. Did the dihedral change? In the drawings from the mkxiv dave attatched it appeared to have less dihedral than earlier spits.
Will

Curious how this one will handle grass landing strips. Hope the video that comes out demonstrates grass landings.

Interesting that MotionRC just posted in their store a FlightLineRC Spitfire in the same size running 4S stock, and cheaper (though without rx).

Might this be the original, RB 169?

See Flightline is smart by using a 4s lipo . 1100mm is fine for 3s

Dihedral appears to be fine. Look again at the head-on pic and you'll see enough of the top of the wing to give the illusion that there's not as much dihedral as is present in actuality. Ignore the visible wing top and now look only at the leading edge of the wing. This odd optical illusion is exacerbated by the shape of the Spitfire's trailing edge.

Originally Posted by FieldofDreamsFlyer

See Flightline is smart by using a 4s lipo . 1100mm is fine for 3s

Well here's the interesting thing, the Dynam 1200mm Spitfire uses a 3s and while it's not a rocket ship, it's not too underpowered imo. That being said, however, I do agree that this plane will benefit from a 4s, and probably will be something I eventually upgrade.

Still looking forward to it.

Originally Posted by deltaKshatriya

Well here's the interesting thing, the Dynam 1400mm Spitfire uses a 3s and while it's not a rocket ship, it's not too underpowered imo. That being said, however, I do agree that this plane will benefit from a 4s, and probably will be something I eventually upgrade.

Still looking forward to it.

Dynam's Spitfire is 1200mm not 1400mm, and it's a little underpowered on 3S even for a slow scale flyer like me, I had to upgrade to 4S on it.

I have no idea how accurate the 3-view I posted is. I just grabbed one of the first ones I found through Google.

There's more to power system design than just cell count. It's a balancing act between cell count, prop design and ESC cost. When developing the EFL 1350mm Hurricane we debated going 4S, but we ended at 3S because we figured the batteries would be cheaper for more people.

Don't underestimate the value of taking advantage of standard battery sizes. The 3S 2200 pack is ubiquitous, which makes it easier for people to pick up a new plane if they don't need to buy a new battery size. At 4S, I believe the 3200 size is more popular than 2200-2500, although that may be changing. A 4S 3200 pack in this size airplane adds an awful lot of weight, so I wouldn't go that route.