Guillow's Spitfire Part 10 Flying with Rubber
Vložit
- čas přidán 27. 07. 2020
- The story continues on my Guillow's Rubber-powered Spitfire (kit No. 403), this rubber free flight stuff isn't as easy as it looks, RC has spoilt me! However, great fun as always and more to come. Follow me for updates by hitting the subscribe button, thank you.
🔴 Remember to Subscribe (it's Free!) for more Fun videos all about Flying, Building and Aerial Filming in Model Aircraft by clicking this link: / @cliffharveyrcplanes (for every new subscriber I get I'm one step closer to my dream of flying in a vintage Tiger Moth).
🔴 Click here for my latest video: / @cliffharveyrcplanes - Věda a technologie
Don't forget to subscribe for regular 'Cliff Harvey RC Planes' videos using this link: czcams.com/channels/jnAks7p9kAw7idDD9XtqZw.html
Your video just shows that those beautiful rubber powered scale models DO REALLY FLY. Yes, they need to be built extremely light, good propeller and rubber but this type of aeromodelling is cheap and EXTREMELY satisfying much more than those enormous extremely complex and expensive radio controlo models. Greetings from Colombia
Well said Eduardo, I've had more fun and satisfaction from this model than any other in my hangar 👍🙂
Its always hard to get scale models to fly well but rewarding when they finally perform.
You're right Paul, most satisfying in the end 🙂👍
Cliff you must have the patience of Jobe!!
I am patient Ian that's true, if not I would have stamped on it weeks ago 😁
A real video, thank you very much for your selfless sharing.
My pleasure!
A+ for effort Cliff. Fantastic job. In my opinion, you win, "Peoples choice award".
Thanks David, kind of you to say so, but I'm already a winner ... I've got a gorgeous model of one of my favourite planes 👍
Great job Cliff you really stuck with it. You have a beautiful looking model you should be quite proud of that. I cannot get my models to fly any further than what you did. My hat goes off to these guys that can trim amount that they fly in circles one way and then when the power goes off they fly in circles the other way mine just go straight away into the ground. Good luck and keep on building you do a great job my friend.
Thanks Bob, I've just put rc in her but can't maiden until this latest lockdown is over, but it should be good 🤞🙂
I always new there was a big difference in rubber power airplanes over R/C flying both are hard to master
True but both are also great fun, cheers
I built a heavily modified Guillows Spitfire years ago and it did consistent 30 second flights - sometimes a bit more with some thermal assistance. I've been away from the hobby for a number of years but I'm thinking I might want to build a plane or two again. Like someone else said in the comments, the key to trimming these models is to first adjust the glide and then carry on with thrust adjustments the rest of the way.
Hi Bruce, thanks for your comments, much appreciated, one of the Joy's of these little models is you don't need a big outlay of time, space or tools to get 100% satisfaction 👍
Lovely looking aircraft Cliff, like Carlos said, just a few tweaks.👍
Thanks Gary, the Spitfire is a lovely looking plane from every angle 👍
Good to see the thought process, thanks for sharing
Thanks Mark, I'll get there in the end 🙂
Great stuff, I’ve been waiting for this. I have to take my hat off to you cliff, I would have given up after the first attempt. Free flight is a complete different ball game to rc flying and I think that if you are not disheartened at first you will be rewarded in the long run. I can’t speak from experience but I intend to find out. 👍
It's a different challenge Jon I agree, no point in giving up though, one must rise to the challenge even if the model doesn't 😁
Knowing you Cliff, you'll persevere and have some successful flights soon
That's a promise Carl 👍
Ah fond memories! We used to use castor oil as a rubber motor lubricant, to get more winds on without snapping the motor, do they still do that?
Good question, most lubes these days are silicone based I think, castor oil would suffice but it will stain the tissue 👍
Its better than I've ever done and looks a heck of a lot better.
Hi Garry, thanks, there's more to come out of this airframe yet 🙂
Cliff what a great looking Spitfire, sure do get your steps in flying it. Fun video Cliff, Jeff in LA USA
Thanks Jeff, it's fun to go back to basics sometimes 👍
I too am learning the mysteries of free-flight trimming. As I understand it, one trims for a long flat glide with nose or tail weight and perhaps a bit of elevator or rudder trim. Following that powered flight adjustment is made mostly with thrust line adjustment. Too much climb calls for more down thrust. Dive under power calls for less down thrust rather than up elevator. Adjustment to right or left turn under power is mostly made with adjustments to right or left thrust.
Thanks Mark, that's how I understood it as well, one soon forgets in the excitement of the occasion, I'll go back to the beginning and try again!
Lovely video, was a real pleasure to watch. I wish I had your persistance.. 👍
Thanks Jerry, it was more a case of having fun in a persistent way 😁
Nice jobs Cliff! I tires rubber planes before but I gave up in the second one after a few throws...
They weren't quite good designed I guess. Too heavy for flat wings, no aerofoil shape.
But you got a proper one, it is just a matter of tweaks here and there!
👍🏻
Thanks Carlos, yes I agree, I won't give up just yet 🙂
Well done! I used to dabble with rubber-powered planes years ago (had the KeilKraft Spitfire) but it never flew well!
Thanks Daren, these are a bit bigger than the old KK models we used to build so perhaps more wing area equals more success? 🙂
They do say bigger is better! ;)
Very sturdy build to survive all this launches. Rubber is hard, once out of hand, no control input. But if it can fly, you are the one to do it!
Thank you Irwin, it's a sturdy kit, perhaps too study! 🙂
Cliff I like the weight box in the cowling.
Thanks Stephen, it makes it easy to add or subtract weight 🙂 I don't know how other modellers do it?
Good effort Cliff. You were kind of getting there in the end. Re the winding up, I appreciate you need to know how many turns of the band, but with your ingenuity I'm sure you could come up with a battery driven little motor with a hook to turn the prop direct and just count a number of seconds or something! You'd get ten times as many test flights! If R J Mitchell could see you now he'd be proud. ☺️
If RJ could see me now he'd be laughing his head off I would think 🙂 Re the winder they are available commercially actually but where's the fun in that. You may have noticed in the video I stood the other side of the table so you could see the process but I'm pretty useless with my left hand, pretty jerky, what I need is an electric winder 😁
Awesome Cliff. I so enjoy your channel. Surprised I hadn't seen this one yet. Spits are a bit pitchy...tough this one, but beautiful!
Hi Adam, have you watched the evolution of this model to rc? czcams.com/video/oj2EpVXv3a8/video.html cheers 👍
@@CliffHarveyRCPlanes I have watched that!😁
Hats off to you mate for rising to the challenge of trimming a small free flight spitfire. Amongst the low wing free flight models that ive seen flying successfully the spitfire doesn't seem to be one of the most popular
May be due to the elliptical wing shape. So I think that if you can trim this little bird it would look great in the air.
Hi John, thanks, I don't know if you're seen my 'Spitfire Evolution' video, she's four channel rc now and flies beautifully, cheers.
@@CliffHarveyRCPlanes oh ok thanks I'll check that out.
Rubber-powered flight is incredibly tricky to nail. First, you have to build your crates lighter and straighter than you ever thought possible - ditch that landing gear, etc., and trim down everything rear of the CG - then stuff them with rubber. You can help the CG by moving the motor peg forward. (I usually build in several potential peg positions, so I can change it if necessary.)
My personal scale aircraft record is a mere two minutes, but what a glorious two minutes.
Radio control is technology; rubber-powered free flight is magic!
(Check out my latest video for lightweight building techniques.)
Salute!🍻
Hi Crassrr, I like the multiple peg positions, thanks 👍
Cliff nice flying field and Spitfire,to be honest it is better to make a plug in undercarriage for flying less torsional damage to the wing and they are very draggy too,unless it was a stipulation of the competition that you were entering ? I use paper rolled tubes and dowel for the undercarriage legs,I have the Guillows P-51 which has been successfully converted to small R/C with a tiny motor and micro servos my plan is to do the same with their Spitfire kit,people have had good success converting them,the problem with Guillows is their choice of balsa ! its usually heavy grade stock and I think that they must have purchased a few balsa trees because they have been churning out kits now for years with that stuff ! good luck with your trimming.
Hi Angle, thanks for your comment, it was a stipulation but because the wing was banded on it's never suffered any damage, but yes, I agree, loads of drag. Since this video I have converted to rc but just on the rudder and elevator ... it doesn't turn 😁! However, I do have plans to fit ailerons to it in the future but in the meantime she's flown quite successfully round-the-pole in my garden, I'll edit the video of that in the next few days 👍
How do you adjust the elevator? And how did you manage the wing with the rubber band?
Guillows are always very difficult.
Hi Yasser, the elevator was hinged with flexible hinges because I knew I was going to convert it to radio control, although one of the hinges was a thin piece of copper which kept the position, when the time came to do the conversion I merely cut through the copper hinge leaving the elevator flexible. As for the fitting the wing with the rubber band all is revealed in Part 6 here: czcams.com/video/LWJnvWLXIp0/video.html 🙂 It was extra work but it's saved the model from any real damage loads of times 👍
Could you use an electric motor on a timer to spin the rubber band up? :0)
That's not a bad idea, electric winders have been used to wind the motor but a timer wouldn't be a good idea but a counter is, my latest winder has a counter, it helps to know when to stop before it breaks! 👍
What did you use for the stiff controls
Hi Matt, I used some thin flat aluminium from a face mask 👍
Did you use any silicone lubrication on the rubberband?
Hi Tuomas, yes, fully lubed, thanks 👍
Enforts pays cliff!! Wonderful flying ¿How much was the total flying weight?
Hi Neftali, auw was 167g of which 42g was ballast! So a quarter of the weight was ballast, next time I'll keep the tail very much lighter
@@CliffHarveyRCPlanes Yes. The weight of the tail should be as small as possible, but a certain structural strength must be ensured, otherwise the rubber band and the tail may resonate during flight. It should be better to use diagonal beams. I wonder if you have any good ways to reduce the weight of the tail?
@@qiangqiangpan2362 you need to remove wood from the structure as you build it, watch part 3 of this series, czcams.com/video/MjK09oSwfBA/video.html, go to 6:18 to see how I do it 👍
Problem here is trying to get a guillows plane to fly on rubber all these bigger planes are good for is putting on a small brushless motor and servos and radio and fly it as rc flies so beautiful as a rc fyi
I agree, what finished mine for rubber was the amount of lead I had to use in the nose to get her to balance ... just dead weight! But as a four channel rc she's great fun, cheers 👍
I've built mine extra light... with a lot of care, no paint and it flies just like yours... Maybe the tailplane is too small? I have not finish with mine either, weather keeps me on the ground.. All the best!
Hi Jorge, what size rubber motor have you fitted?
@@CliffHarveyRCPlanes Hello Cliff, first I tried a double loop of 3/32 at one and one half the length peg to prop, it was too weak, one loop of 3/16 worked better. This kit has to fly fast. I had to put a lot a weigh up front to keep the CG where recommended despite taking a lot of care to lighten up the tail. The only way it few was with a lot of nose down thrust and about 800 turns, it climbed a bit but as soon as the power stopped it stalled. I'm not an expert... I've heard some ol' timers enlarge the tailplane on scale models to make them flyable. One can see this in the Dumas P-39 kit, it has an enourmous tailplane. I have not finished with it, problem is the weather, roun'd here if it does not rain, we have high wind. (I'm in Normandy) Keep at it... keep posting, I'll do the same. Cheers.
@@Yosemite-George-61 They do seem to need a big motor Jorge, what we're aiming for from power to glide is a smooth transition without stalling of course, is your motor bunching up? That's why I braided mine. Here's an interesting thread on tailplane sizing, www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?2202415-Tail-Volume-Coefficient-for-RC-Airplanes. I had to add a load of weight to the nose as well despite lightening the tail.
Nice looing job .cliff you should check out josh Finn's u tube on breading rubber motors .made a lot of deffo to mine
Hi Sam, thanks for the info, yes, I've watched Josh's braiding video, it works like magic when you actually do the braiding but I think my next step a bigger prop, thanks again. 🙂
Maybe the propeller is too small, I always try a bigger propeller and increase the right pull angle.
Hi Qiangqiang Pan, I have tried a bigger prop since this video but the model has now morphed into a radio control version, I'm hoping it'll fly on just rudder and elevator. Just waiting for our latest lockdown to end to try it out 👍
I did the same kit. i think the paint job killed it. never flew over 30 feet,
Hi Joe, weight is everything with these models isn't it? If I built it again for rubber power I would strive to make it a lot lighter, cheers.
Have you lubricated the band?
Yes Ian, thanks for checking though 🙂
Another you tube expert !
My recommendation is to make another stabilzer that is larger than scale. I believe that this will improve your flight perfromance.
Thanks for the idea, I can test it simply by taping some card onto the original 🤔
@@CliffHarveyRCPlanes You can even make a removable unit that is just an adapter for flight that you can take off so that your static scale still looks good.
Miight also be a good idea to consider flying without the landing gear.
Thanks for sharing your experience. Frustrating, ain't it?
Look for "anatomy of a trim session" by maxfliart.
Hi Ken, thanks, I've watched Tom's videos for a while, they are inspiring to say the least. When you're out in the fresh air having fun it's easy to forget everything about trimming 👍😁
@@CliffHarveyRCPlanes By the time I get to the field, I'm only 10 years old!
The paint really dae add weight tae
Hi 'J', not as much as you would think actually, the tissue is coloured and the green is watered down, thanks for commenting.
Hi Harvey, good at last to see some flights as well... A few suggestions, if I may. Ensure somehow that the wing stays always in place, but is still easilly detached from the fuselage. Very lw dowels and corresponding holes. The prop looks indeed small. Definetely nose weight, nothing to be afraid of. And definetelly more rubber, in cross section and in length. Imagine a ratio of 10-15% of rubber to airframe weight at least. Glad to see it in one piece after all these landings
Oops, I meant Cliff...
Thanks for the advice George, although the wing moves a little on landing it always goes back to the same place with adjustment again, I really wanted to avoid any dowels as they have a tendency to break, no dowels no breaks 🙂. I had to stick with the prop that came with the kit, it was the rules for the competition but I'll get a bigger one now it's over. I used two loops of 1/8", 1.5 times the length of the fuselage, lubed and braided of course. The nose weight is quite heavy, I was advised to keep the tail ridiculously light for that reason (I should have tried harder) so in theory the amount of rubber is probably a lot more than I used.
You tube experts know everything !
I built Guillows airplanes when I was a kid, and under rubber power not one of them ever flew further than I could toss it. They look so nice, but "flying models"? No. Monogram Speedee-Built scale models were even worse.
I think to an extent you're right but when we were young we didn't know to build in lots of lightness, coupled with decent rubber and a knowledge of how to trim a model, this is the key to a good flight. With this particular model I needed a lot of nose weight due to the short nose despite lightening the tail end, this pushed the overall flying weight way to high, thanks for your comment 🙂
@@CliffHarveyRCPlanes Yes, that is all so very true. However, if a company is going to sell "flying" models to kids, extra skill to sufficiently lighten the structure and to perform finicky balancing ought not be required. Lightness and proper balance ought to be part of the design. The instructions say nothing about any of this or how to properly turn the rubber or virtually anything else of use.
All those scale airplanes with too-short noses, the bi-planes in particular, super high wing loadings caused by overly heavy structures made worse when the model is balanced to any degree, shallow, inadequate airfoils, insufficient rubber motors and unsuitable propellors, the list is long. This is also true of the similar Sterling and Monogram so-called "rubber-powered flying models".
Another thing. I think it's cruel and deceptive to only show a scale drawing of the actual airplane on the box cover, etc. when the manufacturers so-well- know that even an expertly finished model, as supplied, could never look even close to it. At least also show a photo of a finished MODEL so the kids have something realistic to shoot for. To their credit, Monogram did this on their instruction sheet for their four superb, early '50s Five-Star Super Deluxe Speedee-Bilt models (B-17, B-24, A-26, and B-25), but those were purely for display and not advertised as able to be flown. With care and some skill they actually could be built to look like the real thing using nothing more than what was supplied in the kit.
As adults in the modern miniature radio and electric power world, we know how to build them and set them up to fly as you've excellently demonstrated. But we 10, 11, or so-year-old kids in the early '60s didn't have a ghost of a chance. They certainly knew this and ought to have done better by us.
@@Glicksman1 You're right of course on every point but it didn't seem to matter to me, just to see a plane appear from the box was enough, the fact it didn't fly further than you could throw it meant I couldn't lose it 🙂. I was just a kid in a field, I had nothing to compare it with, I was just having fun.
@@CliffHarveyRCPlanes Me, too. Building (and throwing) those Guillows, etc. was nirvana to me. I never lost one either. :) I wasn't as annoyed, or at all then, when they wouldn't fly worth a damn, but time has made me wiser and grumpier.
Comet (sometimes) had it right, though, especially the "Coke Bottle" box cover ones. I built and flew their stuff for years and they always flew well.
Cheers.
A great builder you are A pilot you are not
I'm sure there may be a compliment in there somewhere Phil, thanks 😁