By: Yak 11 Fan - 9th February 2005 at 09:04
Seem to recall somebody wanting to do this sort of thing with a low back 16 some years ago but was talked out of it….
By: DazDaMan - 9th February 2005 at 08:36
I’ve actually seen something similar to this, but I’m not allowed to post it….!!!
Looks good, though 🙂
By: Mark V - 9th February 2005 at 00:02
What? No fun with no rear controls though, surely?
By: Mark12 - 8th February 2005 at 23:48
How’s this? Obviously not shaded etc but before I redo that, let’s get it how it should look first 🙂
Dan
Dan,
Very nice, we have captured the line.
Don’t listen to them about the moving the cockpit forward. 🙂
This a cheap Spitfire project. This is not dual control.
The contra prop, and dumping the lead out of the tail fin will fix the c of g. We could even carry some lead ballast up on the front engine bearer if the numbers are marginal.
I like it.
Mark
By: Guzzineil - 8th February 2005 at 23:35
Like the look of that longer canopy… 😀 what about a Reno-Racer ‘scheme! 😮
Neil.
By: Mark V - 8th February 2005 at 23:33
Dan, nice one but I think the old C of G issue would mean that like the T.9 you need to start by moving the front cockpit forward by 13.5 inches. It would be interesting to see how this looks. BTW – leave the rear door etc where it is – this will leave more space for the rear persons knees, rudder bar etc.
By: Dan Johnson - 8th February 2005 at 23:13
How’s this? Obviously not shaded etc but before I redo that, let’s get it how it should look first 🙂
Dan
By: Mark12 - 8th February 2005 at 22:56
Was this what you had in mind?
Dan
That is great Dan.
I suspect that we might have to have that rear door back about six inches to get the rear passenger’s knees accommodated. He/she wouldn’t have to sit as high as the pilot so the canopy glazing even though longer could look more sleeker past the pilot’s station.
What d’ya think?
Thanks.
Mark
Sign In
February 8, 2005 at 10:14 pm
