Ever since I received the March '76 Aeromodeller I've been intrigued by the Mooney Sparrohawk. Now, in a later era I am contiplating building it. But there are some points that aren't clear. For instance, on the plan the wing ribs are semi-symmetrical, but with a dotted line indicating a flat bottomed section. Is the wing built flat on the plan with flat bottommed ribs or semi symmetrical with supported LE and TE? The second point is the enlarged dihedral. Are the ribs meant to be vertical while a wingpanel is being built flat on the plan, or are they angled to be vertical in the head on view? And finally, the wing has two spars on the top but none on the bottom. Is this a stable construction? I would be greatfulf to anyone who has built the model who could shed some light on these issues.
Having a fresh look at Walt's plan, my approach would be:
- Make the wing on the building board with flat bottomed ribs, and then when it's all set, and after doing the dihedral, because you want the centre section pinned flat for that operation, stick very light pieces on the bottom of all the ribs and sand to get the semi-symmetrical profile
- put all ribs in upright and make the dihedral by cracking the spars ,LE and TE and gluing at the right angle to get the dihedral. This will leave the ribs at the dihedral break upright. I think I would put gussets in around the crack sites to support the spars etc at the right angle. It seems that the wing fillet is not just purely decorative - as I read the plan, they are an essential part of joining the wing and fuselage, since none of the wing ribs are located to glue to the fuselage. Walt may have taken the view that the fillets will operate like gussets in relation to the spars, LE and TE, so he didn't put in gussets.
Quote from: Stunthenk on Jan 27, 2026, 12:01 AMEver since I received the March '76 Aeromodeller I've been intrigued by the Mooney Sparrohawk....
You and me both! :D The attached photos show my second attempt (first attempt was in the late 1970's it didn't go well...)
The pictures should explain how I made the wing; I just flattened off the bottom of the ribs because it was easier. I didn't bother with gussets at the wing root but probably should have, although I was careful with the covering and pre-shrunk the tissue, so it doesn't seem to have pulled-in at the edges. Also, I didn't bother with the wing fillets because they were a pain, and I'm quite lazy.
I have a moveable rudder on mine but you might not need one if you're flying outdoors. All Sparrowhawks I've seen (about three or four, I think) seem to like rolling left and flying (briefly) knife-edge (I suspect that the spiral airflow coming off the propeller is interacting with the spats), so what I did was to put washin on the port wing and washout on the starboard wing and then balance off the right bank with left rudder. It needs very little right thrust, but about 4-5 degrees of downthrust.
I didn't like the paper spats so made some from balsa, covered with 1/64" sheet.
And finally... if this is your first peanut, I salute your courage and fortitude. If it was my first peanut, I'd build something simpler and easier to trim first (not preaching, just saying)*
A.
*Thanks, Crabby... at least, I think it was Crabby who coined the phrase :-)
This was the first peanut I ever built, it must have been the early 80s. I built a jig for the wings including the dihedral and washout and built the wing in one piece on the jig. The LE and TE were supported off the jig to allow the full depth ribs to be used without having to add bits underneath afterwards. I moulded the turtle deck on a former before attaching it to the fuz. Made the spats from paper just as the plan. Flys really well.
This is it with my Mooney MLG.
Malc.
Quote from: AndyB on Jan 31, 2026, 03:02 PMAll Sparrowhawks I've seen (about three or four, I think) seem to like rolling left and flying (briefly) knife-edge (I suspect that the spiral airflow coming off the propeller is interacting with the spats)
My dime scale Sparrowhawk exhibits this exact behavior. At some point as the torque burns off it flips around into a tight, flat right-hand circle for the remainder of powered flight. I'll have to try your trimming tips...
Cheers,
Mike
Thats interesting, if I overwound mine it would climb in to a stall turn, do 2 or 3 flat spins, then recover as if nothing had happened!
M.
I would really prefer to do the full wing section as shown on the plan, using strips under the LE and TE during construction and while the dope is drying. I also intend to trim the model - if I build it- to fly in left-hand circles. I also believe strongly in adding the wing fillets, both for structual as for aerodynamic reasons. I plan to fly the model indoors. I do hope that the reports on flat spins were about outdoor flying! It is not my first Peanut, but it will be my first low wing peanut. I will be sure to use wash-in on the right wing and wash-out on the right wing. A I will modify the plan to have adjustable rudder and elevators. Good insurance!
FWIW, my experience with moveable elevators on indoor models has not been positive - they are, however, excellent for losing the trim when you either a) drop the model or b) knock the elevators whilst getting it out of or putting it into the transport box... :o
A.
Some inspiration for you.
Sparrowhawk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apOXvEey-30)
It's about 60% bigger than your Peanut and a real beauty.
Steve
You're right - it's very inspirational! :)
Quote from: AndyB on Feb 09, 2026, 05:14 PMFWIW, my experience with moveable elevators on indoor models has not been positive - they are, however, excellent for losing the trim when you either a) drop the model or b) knock the elevators whilst getting it out of or putting it into the transport box... :o
A.
Checking with a little piece of balsa cut to the current trim angle of the elevators (or other movable surfaces as applicable) will ensure the correct angle before the next flight.
However, the question remains on the best trim pattern. In his article Walt Mooney says about trim: The model climbs in a wide right hand circle and glides in tighter right circles. Under the first 'power burst' the Sparrowhawk banks to the left and flies almost straight - allowing the model to turn left under power usually results in a spiral dive. ' On the other hand, Butch Hadland in his 'Indoor Trim article ' https://www.flyingacesclub.com/PFFT/IndoorTrimming.pdf
states: 'My low-wing models always fly left. Flying right against the torgue is suicial and should be avoided at all cost'.
This conundrum leaves me in a quandary: what to do about the trim of the Sparowhamk?
Quote from: Stunthenk on Feb 15, 2026, 10:34 PM...
Checking with a little piece of balsa cut to the current trim angle of the elevators (or other movable surfaces as applicable) will ensure the correct angle before the next flight.... snip
Yes, but I'm too lazy to have to go through all that kerfuffle before every flight! :)
If you're flying outdoors I think you could probably get away with the Walt Mooney trim as long as the wings are pretty much level, particularly if there's some washout. If the inside (right) wing gets too low scale models normally start spiralling in, which is only going to end one way.
I can only report that my Sparrowhawk has a Hadland-esque set of warps and rudder deflection and flies indoors quite happily to the left. I always fly my low-wing models to the left, mainly because I don't like having to do repairs, and flying left works Ok for me.
As I wanted to display a model in its first stage of construction for the 'arts day' I started on the Sparrowhawk. And as the first guests only arrived after 3/4 of an hour because of the heavy showers we had that afternoon, I had some extra building time! And the structure of this kind of model is not that much work, is it?
So now I have the basic airframe components in hand, and my thoughts go to the finish. I would like to avoid buildinng the prototype G-ADNL as it is too well known. Instead, I would like to build G-AELT. Now, 'everybody knows' this was finished in blue with silver lettering, but static judges don't! They want an 'authorative description'! And I haven't been able to find one. I did come accross a reference to the magazine R/C Scale International, the May / June 1998 issue, where one Philip Kent published an article and a plan, complete with a description of the colour of G-AELT. Does anyone have a copy or another source of description that will satisfy static judges?IMG_6064.JPGIMG_6084.JPG
If you Google AI "Miles sparrowhawk G-AELT colour" it says blue. If you follow it up with "how do you know it was blue" it gives more info which certainly add up to the 'authentic written colour description' which is all you need.
Thanks for the tip. I followed your reccommandation, but what I get is:
Comprehensive reference material (such as the definitive Miles Aircraft Since 1925 by Don L. Brown) and contemporary coverage of the 1936 Schlesinger African Air Race record the paint schemes used by the entrants etc.
I have an online copy of the Miles Aircraft book, where the colour scheme of the prototype is mentioned, but not that of G-AELT. 'Contemporary coverage' in the AI text is 2nd source information, not a link to the 'contemporary coverage' itself which is 1st source. Would static judges be satisfied by such AI statements?
"
what colour was the miles sparrowhawk G-AELT and how do we know
The Miles M.5A Sparrowhawk with registration G-AELT was painted dark blue with silver registration letters.
We know this because of surviving historical aviation documentation, multi-view (3-view) scale drawings, and records referenced by scale builders and aviation historians detailing its specific 1936 Schlesinger Race livery.
If you like, I can help you find:
• Additional historical photos or technical specs of the Miles Sparrowhawk
• Information on Victor Smith's flight in the 1936 Schlesinger Race
Let me know what you would like to explore next.
AI can make mistakes, so double-check responses
•
Wikipedia
Miles Sparrowhawk - Wikipedia
•
RCM&E Magazine
Miles Sparrowhawk - Build Blogs and Kit Reviews
•
wlmac.co.uk
WLMAC Newsletter May 2020
Show all
How do you know it was blue
We know G-AELT was dark blue through a combination of verified contemporary documentation, historical aviation publications, and records from the pilot himself:
• Contemporary Aviation Press & Race Reports: Detailed records of the 1936 Schlesinger African Air Race (published in historic magazines like Flight and The Aeroplane) meticulously documented the participating aircraft, their specifications, and their corporate sponsor livery.
• Sponsorship Records: G-AELT was entered into the race by pilot Victor Smith with backing from the George Boot Factory in South Africa. The aircraft was specifically painted in a dark blue livery accented with sponsor lettering.
• Aviation Historians & Modeller Archives: Highly specialized publications, such as RC Scale International (specifically the May/June 1998 research article by Phillip Kent) and Aeroplane Monthly, analyzed original factory paint notes, three-view drawings, and black-and-white tonal orthochromatic photographic plates to confirm the dark blue and silver scheme.
• Logbooks and Subsequent Military Service: After the race, G-AELT was sold in South Africa as ZS-ANO and eventually impressed into the South African Air Force in 1940 as serial 1427, creating a clear paper trail of the airframe's physical history.
That will satisfy judges I think. It's not perfect but it will do.
To answer Henk's question, before reading what Bill write, personally speaking, I wouldn't...
But it is a minimal cost to pay, color accuracy... 2% of static, 1% of total score.
And you will definetely not get a 10 for accuracy, but maybe not a zero either, so I would not worry too much about that.
George
Still, I would love a copy of the Philip Kent magazine article... And / or a description of Sparrowhawk entry in the Schlesinger race, from a contemporary source... Even if 1%, every point counts!
Contemporary B&W Schlesinger Race photo at link below which shows that it was dark colour with light lettering. So arguing for dark blue & silver scheme shouldn't be too hard.
https://raes.soutron.net/Portal/Default/en-GB/RecordView/Index/1124989
Recent(ish) images from a build of the SBS (plastics) kit. Which although no good for scale judging purposes may be helpful for your build.
https://imodeler.com/2022/02/miles-sparrowhawk-172-how-a-model-kit-born/
Scanning through the images shows the Kent 3 view so I expect that's what they used as the basis. Anyone know if the Kent 3 view was accredited for Scale comps?
E-mail: contact@sbsmodel.com
Web: https://sbsmodel.com
One quick e-mail exchange with Andy Blackburn later....
Andy tried to chase this down back in '20 and got the following from Peter Amos
".... Phillips & Powis Works Records say that it was painted blue, they don't state which shade. However, looking at the photos of it I would say that it was a dark blue.
This is what the works records state:
c/n 275 Miles M.5A Sparrowhawk; G-AELT, painted blue."
The snap is Andy's build at Trinity.
If a contemporary source states that G-AELT was blue, that is completely satisfactory considering the fact that we are restricted to blue tissue, which has a variety of shades alllowing us to choose a (closely?) matching colour. Unless we want to paint a (peanut) model which increases weight. So the excact shade is not important in our models. However, to prove the colour, a quote from one of the records mentioned would be nice! For instance, is there a scan of a page in the Miles Works records showing this statement? Or in the Phillips & Powis Works records? Or an authenticated statement of an eye witness? (Pilot, factory worker in an interview or a journalist?)
I am sorry that may I appear as a pain in the Gluteus Maximus, but in the end it is primary sources that count...
About plastic models, I've been involved with them for 25 years now, and I've learned to doubt the colour schemes provided with kits. Too many suffer from inadequate research and a desire to market a popular image of a product... (And others go to great lenghts to be correct).