Mick Reeves 1/4 Mk IX Spitfire

[wayne owen]

stewart
i agree 100% ive made the mistake a 1/4 scale spit and my mate bought one and my other mate bought his lightning which has now been scraped , i would never or unless i was on drugs buy anything again customer service s**t and i think i would just go too his place and give it too him personaly, leave it there,

[ian redshaw]

Just thought I'd stick my two penneth in here. I have built many of Mick Reeves models. Starting with a Fournier, 2 x Pups, 1 x Camel, Hurricane and the built up 1/4 Spitfire. All went together well, yes there were a few niggles on the Fournier and on the Hurricane and Spitfire, but nothing that couldn't be sorted. The most annoying things were pinholes in the glassfibre mouldings, but I've seen similar pinholes in several kits that cost well over 4 times the price. The kits are basic, sometimes a little crude, but I would say that EVERYTHING was usable in the kits I had, and they can turn into lovely models that fly extremely well. The designs are basically very well engineered, an ideal canvas to take a step further if required. Get a similar model at the price, I think not.

I have dealt with Mick for years and although he can be a bit blunt, you can't expect him to gas on for ages because he has to find time to make the darned stuff to sell to moaning modellers. Don't get me wrong, if something is sh1te then let people know, but there are two sides to every tale. Mick has many many very satisfied customers out there, I am one of them and will continue to deal with him and his products.

I will however concede that the Spitfire cowl didn't fit too well, but this didn't bother me since I am doing a Mk1, so a new cowl required anyhoo

What weight has your Spitfire amounted to Stewart, how much ballast?

Ian.

[stewart clifford]

Hi Ian

I agree with some of your points and accept that some of his stuff probably works fine but with the Spitfire cowl and retracts for instance it's not really acceptable and nor was his response. I just think if people returned things which are not up to standard a bit more then it would be better for everyone in the long run. I know how modellers can, be I used to have a model shop, so I know what people like MR are up against.

As for the weight, it finished up at 41lbs but I didn't weigh the ballast(Doh). I can tell you there was a lot of lead used, I melted it into a box then had to cut it into strips, each strip was as wide as the engine box about 25mm deep and 15 mm thick and there were about 6 strips if I remember rightly. I guess the lead weighed as much as the engine, you may use a bit more with the shorter nosed MK 1.

Stewart

[ian redshaw]

Cheers for that Stewart. I'm making every effort to lighten the rear end and am hoping not to be requiring a roofs worth of lead!! Mine has a geared Zenoah 62 on a very short propdriver so thats a fair amount of useful ballast right at the pointy end. Mine has Unitracts retracts though I have used Micks larger units before with no major problems. What is wrong with your units?

Ian.

[Mike Booth]

Ian you might find some guide in knowing that my PRU Spit has 2.25lbs of lead mounted over the engine crankcase on a steel bracket to achieve a 27% centre of gravity.
We use 3W 80xi's
Will she be done for the summer and in the massed flypast at Cosford?

[stewart clifford]

My lead was also fitted over the crankcase and came almost up to the back of the prop driver.

The problem with the retracts is when down they are both locking but the locking pin doesn't travel all the way back, this allows the leg to wobble a fair bit. When they go up they both lock up but the starboard one will not come back down unless you push it up slightly first, the port one plays up sometimes too. If you remove the doors and wheels they work ok. Basically I think the spring tension is wrong and this combind with the fairly crude machining and the plastic syringes for air cylinders is all ammounting to the problem(forgive me if that didn't all make sense but it's been a long day).

Mr Booth is also making an early type out of his kit right now.

Stewart

[Jason Griffiths]

Did you get the problems sorted out with the Spitfire

[stewart clifford]

Hi Jason, The retracts were sent back to Mick Reeves again and this time he has changed some parts and has said that they work fine now. The owner is also changing some of the Micky Mouse fittings so anytime soon it should have a u/c that works, then it can go flying.

Stewart

[Jason Griffiths]

Stewart that's good news then .... did you get any better pictures of it,im looking into a 1/4th scale spit now.

[stewart clifford]

Still unflown, is apparently now up for sale

[stewart clifford]

With two more of these Reeves Spitfires on the go here now I thought I'd' just add them to this thread. I think it should give a good view of three different generations of kit from t'he same stable(don't know why my blackberry puts any ' into t'he) first up is my own aircraft. This is a glass fuselage version and arrived in pretty bad shape. T'he 2nd one is a brand new kit and Micks latest effort. Once you see t'he kit you realise that a lot of thought and effort has gone into it and at first glance you can tell it's streets ahead of what came before. T'he glass fuselage is also fully detailed and t'he new ali' wheels are very very nice and at £60 are a must. More soon with pic's as soon as I get t'he pc sorted.

[stewart clifford]

Picture issue now sorted, so heres one of the latest Mick reeves kit.

[Gregg Veasey]

Bit different to the original fuz then. Looks pretty good!

[stewart clifford]

and some more

[stewart clifford]

couple more

[stewart clifford]

The current Spitfire trio outside the shop, in various states. The middle one is going to be my own MKVIII in US markings.

[Mike Booth]

Totally amazed to see that the wing joining tube isn't part of the mainspar.

Viviviviv vivivivar.

[stewart clifford]

Ah, but the two tubes go from rib 4 in one wing straight through to the 4th in the other, all those ribs are ply and they are all well tied into the mainspar. The construcion is a bit unusual though.

Some pics of the tailplane construction and a wing in it's jig awaiting the lower skin.

Now heres a little truth about this build which makes me very sad.......it's going to be powered by..............hurts me to say.........electric, bloomin vegetarian Spifire, it's not right.

Anyway thats the way it is, and because of this it's fuel tanks(aka batteries) have to obviously be accessable between each flight. So the top of the cowl will be removeable and all switches will be inside, no hatches to make. All the major gubbins is behind the joint for the front end so there will be little to disconnect if the nose needs to be removed. I like the removeable nose as it makes a near finished 1/4 scale fuselage much easier to move around and work on.

[Phil Clark]

Carrot munching Spitfires aren't all bad mate..........this one looked, went & sounded OK

[stewart clifford]

Just imagine if the fullsize had been electric, the 'erks wouldn't have been to keen on the spark when plugging in.
Was a lovely model Phil but still not right, no oil,noise, smell, electric is souless