steve m
|
| posted on 19/1/07 at 04:53 PM |
|
|
Making stickers / transfers on my PC ?
I would like to make some transfers/ stickers for my latest R/C spitfire, it had a "incident " with the ground a couple of months ago, and
needed a rebuild, and re cover
My plan was to use some form of software to make lettering and roundels and then print them off in colour and attach to the airframe, I would prefer
self sticking , but can get round that problem
the largest roundel would be about 9"
any one know what programme, and paper would be best suited ?
regards
steve
|
|
|
|
|
BenB
|
| posted on 19/1/07 at 05:23 PM |
|
|
I don't imagine inkjet transfers would have sufficient colour intensity... They might look a bit washed out...
For the roundels why not just lay up circles of Solartrim? Letters might be tricky though 
|
|
|
mookaloid
|
| posted on 19/1/07 at 05:39 PM |
|
|
Google is your friend
here
"That thing you're thinking - it wont be that."
|
|
|
RazMan
|
| posted on 19/1/07 at 06:00 PM |
|
|
If you want decals to last for more than a few weeks then go to your local sign shop. Their printers use special inks that will print directly onto
vinyl and should last for a few years with care.
I recently got some number plates made and was surprised to find that they were also printed too.
Cheers,
Raz
When thinking outside the box doesn't work any more, it's time to build a new box
|
|
|
macnab
|
| posted on 19/1/07 at 08:34 PM |
|
|
spitfires, he he he  oh dear...
you don't have to tell me, been there done that, etc.
Worlds worst handling plane, probably
For roundels I usually just paint them by hand in mat enamel. Not as hard as it sounds, simply put a bit of stick at the centre and use a compass with
a soft lead in it. It actually looks more scale done that way than using stickers. Either way for a spit the whole airframe should be mat, shininess
will not be tolerated! I hope your going to do some weathering as well, my favourite bit of a build.
I would love to see some pics when you’re done.
|
|
|
ayoungman
|
| posted on 19/1/07 at 09:52 PM |
|
|
MacNab, your a closet aeromodeller too. I flew some fun fighters, bf109 and spitfire years ago, your not wrong about being iffy to fly. Full speed or
tip stall into the ground, those were the choices.
"just like that !"
|
|
|
steve m
|
| posted on 19/1/07 at 09:59 PM |
|
|
Thanks for the replys !!
"spitfires, he he he oh dear...
you don't have to tell me, been there done that, etc."
what do you mean !!
they are " DODDLE TO FLY "
just keep your speed up, and landings are good power glideslope and retracts at 50 metres on landing approach
and its all done !
my P47 is much easier !!
|
|
|
Stuart Walker
|
| posted on 19/1/07 at 11:34 PM |
|
|
And they have elliptical wings... Approximately 30% more efficient than rectangular wings (although more difficult and expensive to manufacture). The
same effects can be achieved by using geometrically twisted wings.
Sorry, had an aerodynamics exam today 
|
|
|
macnab
|
| posted on 20/1/07 at 09:18 PM |
|
|
What’s wrong with a Spitfire?
As mentioned before –
Very prone to high speed tip stall
Wings are to thin especially at tips leading to low speed tip stall
Scale under carriage location far to forward leading top nose over’s
Scale tail to small for aircraft resulting in very poor spin recovery
Almost half of the real Spitfires were destroyed in landing accidents, in fact more than had been shot down be the other side. Saying that they do
look just great in the air.
Me a aero-modeller? Been doing that for 23 years.
[Edited on 20/1/07 by macnab]
|
|
|
ayoungman
|
| posted on 21/1/07 at 10:32 PM |
|
|
I agree with MACNAB, if you create a proper scale Spitfire, it is a right handfull to fly. Only if you mess with the proportions does it become
stable. I happen to agree with J.Clarkson and his views on the Spitfire, totally jaw droppingly awesome to look at and to hear. It still makes my
hairs stand on end when I see one flypast !
"just like that !"
|
|
|
