Seagull - Harrier .46 Anyone had any experience?
04-27-2005, 01:10 PM
#101
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: BoulderWest Australia, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Seagull - Harrier .46 Anyone had any experience?
Yes they are light,
I dead sticked the 90 in light to moderate winds.
Had to really push it down to keep the speed up and on the field.
But love flying them i am selling the 46 size to finance the replacement of my extra 300.
But i will never part with the 90 it just flies so nice.
I am going to start to learn aerobatics If i can get Garry to teach me i know he will read this hint!
I am just throwing it about in every direction possible.
It has done heaps with my confidence and coordination they are great planes.
Lawrie
I dead sticked the 90 in light to moderate winds.
Had to really push it down to keep the speed up and on the field.
But love flying them i am selling the 46 size to finance the replacement of my extra 300.
But i will never part with the 90 it just flies so nice.
I am going to start to learn aerobatics If i can get Garry to teach me i know he will read this hint!
I am just throwing it about in every direction possible.
It has done heaps with my confidence and coordination they are great planes.
Lawrie
04-27-2005, 03:21 PM
#102
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Northampton, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 462
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Seagull - Harrier .46 Anyone had any experience?
Yes, they are great flyers - I think the 90 is about the best flying model I have had. You are right about the landing speed: I also had an engine failure and pancaked it in and broke the undercarriage mount because I immediately lost flying speed. The U/C epoxied straight back in but I learned to get the nose down when the engine cuts...
The 90 does inspire confidence and is great for practiceing your 3D and geting closer to the ground - I can do a rolling harrier 50 feet up but at 10 feet my thumbs start getting twitchy (and not just my thumbs...!). The 90 gives the confidence to try these manouvres because of the degree of low speed control you have.
The 90 does inspire confidence and is great for practiceing your 3D and geting closer to the ground - I can do a rolling harrier 50 feet up but at 10 feet my thumbs start getting twitchy (and not just my thumbs...!). The 90 gives the confidence to try these manouvres because of the degree of low speed control you have.
05-06-2005, 01:10 PM
#103
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: OsloSkedsmo, NORWAY
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Seagull - Harrier .46 Anyone had any experience?
How big difference between the .46 and .90 when it comes to low-speed flying? I feel my .46 goes pretty slow, but I expected it to be easier to handle at low speed. I have to lift the nose pretty much to maintain low speed flying, and it tends to flip... Also I really need speed for landing it, though I am not very experienced yet. I wonder how much training it takes to make a 3-wheel landing at the coin? 
Pal
Pal
05-06-2005, 05:26 PM
#104
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Northampton, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 462
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Seagull - Harrier .46 Anyone had any experience?
The 46 is a good flier, but the 90 is excellent. I don't know if the 90 is any slower - it's difficult to put your finger on the difference but the 90 does seem more positive. The 90 is just as quick on the controls as the 46 and probably flies faster, but at low throttle you can walk along with it. It's perhaps a little more stable in harriers than the 46 and is a little easier to hover in my opinion, but there's little between them.
The first flight with my second Harrier 90 I took off nice and straight and the plane immediately flipped inverted. I attempted to right it but it rolled the wrong way. I thought I had interference for an instant, but then the horrible truth hit me: I had the ailerons connected the wrong way. I thought the plane was going in for certain, but I dropped to about 1/4 throtttle, concentrated hard and got the plane around a circuit and back to a reasonable landing. The other lads at the field thought it was great and down to my flying, but I have to admit that it was more due to the plane than to my skills. I don't think I would have got away with that with the Harrier 46. I did learn a good lesson from the incident though...
This type of model usually has so much drag - thick wing section, wide blade large diameter prop et cetera, that you need some power on to reach the landing spot. I usually "fly" the model in on a landing approach and cut the throttle just a few feet from touchdown. Generally though, the landing prodedure on both models is very straightforward.
The first flight with my second Harrier 90 I took off nice and straight and the plane immediately flipped inverted. I attempted to right it but it rolled the wrong way. I thought I had interference for an instant, but then the horrible truth hit me: I had the ailerons connected the wrong way. I thought the plane was going in for certain, but I dropped to about 1/4 throtttle, concentrated hard and got the plane around a circuit and back to a reasonable landing. The other lads at the field thought it was great and down to my flying, but I have to admit that it was more due to the plane than to my skills. I don't think I would have got away with that with the Harrier 46. I did learn a good lesson from the incident though...
This type of model usually has so much drag - thick wing section, wide blade large diameter prop et cetera, that you need some power on to reach the landing spot. I usually "fly" the model in on a landing approach and cut the throttle just a few feet from touchdown. Generally though, the landing prodedure on both models is very straightforward.
05-06-2005, 06:13 PM
#105
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hemel HempsteadHerts., UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Seagull - Harrier .46 Anyone had any experience?
You were very lucky. I had the same problem a few years back. I had spent ages building a Dave Smith Models 'Saphir 40'. Took off and before I knew it I was rolling out of control, about 3 feet above the ground the horrible truth dawned on me... ailerons going the wrong way... unfortunately it was too late and the model was lying in a heap on the ground. I learnt a valuable lesson and I hope I never make the same mistake again. Luckily no-one else was at the field to see my stupidity 
ORIGINAL: Bodge
The 46 is a good flier, but the 90 is excellent. I don't know if the 90 is any slower - it's difficult to put your finger on the difference but the 90 does seem more positive. The 90 is just as quick on the controls as the 46 and probably flies faster, but at low throttle you can walk along with it. It's perhaps a little more stable in harriers than the 46 and is a little easier to hover in my opinion, but there's little between them.
The first flight with my second Harrier 90 I took off nice and straight and the plane immediately flipped inverted. I attempted to right it but it rolled the wrong way. I thought I had interference for an instant, but then the horrible truth hit me: I had the ailerons connected the wrong way. I thought the plane was going in for certain, but I dropped to about 1/4 throtttle, concentrated hard and got the plane around a circuit and back to a reasonable landing. The other lads at the field thought it was great and down to my flying, but I have to admit that it was more due to the plane than to my skills. I don't think I would have got away with that with the Harrier 46. I did learn a good lesson from the incident though...
This type of model usually has so much drag - thick wing section, wide blade large diameter prop et cetera, that you need some power on to reach the landing spot. I usually "fly" the model in on a landing approach and cut the throttle just a few feet from touchdown. Generally though, the landing prodedure on both models is very straightforward.
The 46 is a good flier, but the 90 is excellent. I don't know if the 90 is any slower - it's difficult to put your finger on the difference but the 90 does seem more positive. The 90 is just as quick on the controls as the 46 and probably flies faster, but at low throttle you can walk along with it. It's perhaps a little more stable in harriers than the 46 and is a little easier to hover in my opinion, but there's little between them.
The first flight with my second Harrier 90 I took off nice and straight and the plane immediately flipped inverted. I attempted to right it but it rolled the wrong way. I thought I had interference for an instant, but then the horrible truth hit me: I had the ailerons connected the wrong way. I thought the plane was going in for certain, but I dropped to about 1/4 throtttle, concentrated hard and got the plane around a circuit and back to a reasonable landing. The other lads at the field thought it was great and down to my flying, but I have to admit that it was more due to the plane than to my skills. I don't think I would have got away with that with the Harrier 46. I did learn a good lesson from the incident though...
This type of model usually has so much drag - thick wing section, wide blade large diameter prop et cetera, that you need some power on to reach the landing spot. I usually "fly" the model in on a landing approach and cut the throttle just a few feet from touchdown. Generally though, the landing prodedure on both models is very straightforward.
05-06-2005, 06:43 PM
#106
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Northampton, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 462
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Seagull - Harrier .46 Anyone had any experience?
Yeah, when it all goes horribly wrong you either get it back and you're a hero, or you don't and you're a tw*t. It's usually the latter that happens to me and, I suspect, many others..
Fortunately Sod's law is not infallible - it leaves you with just enough luck to keep you interested, and spending your money...
Fortunately Sod's law is not infallible - it leaves you with just enough luck to keep you interested, and spending your money...
05-07-2005, 06:01 PM
#108
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Northampton, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 462
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Seagull - Harrier .46 Anyone had any experience?
I used an ASP61 four stroke with about the same power and it was fine. You don't need too much power with this model - it's unnecessary.
I changed the fourstroke for a J'EN 56. Loads more power, but the overall performance and flying characteristics were not really improved - and you do need to be more careful with the extra power...
So yes: in my opinion a 46 2c would be great for this plane.
I changed the fourstroke for a J'EN 56. Loads more power, but the overall performance and flying characteristics were not really improved - and you do need to be more careful with the extra power...
So yes: in my opinion a 46 2c would be great for this plane.
05-08-2005, 12:58 PM
#109
My Feedback: (25)
RE: Seagull - Harrier .46 Anyone had any experience?
For those that have the .46 Harrier - a couple of questions.
1. Any who has weighed their plane. What was the ready to fly weight without fuel and what engine did you use?
2. Has anyone flown this bird with a YS63?
3. Does the .46 size Harrier also have flying wires on the tail?
1. Any who has weighed their plane. What was the ready to fly weight without fuel and what engine did you use?
2. Has anyone flown this bird with a YS63?
3. Does the .46 size Harrier also have flying wires on the tail?
05-08-2005, 01:06 PM
#110
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: BoulderWest Australia, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Seagull - Harrier .46 Anyone had any experience?
2.724kg 6pounds
no wires on the tail
OS 70fs ultimate about 13 minutes with safety margine on standard tank unlimited power
no wires on the tail
OS 70fs ultimate about 13 minutes with safety margine on standard tank unlimited power
05-09-2005, 02:33 PM
#111
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: OsloSkedsmo, NORWAY
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Seagull - Harrier .46 Anyone had any experience?
What prop size do you have Lawrie?
I tried it with a 14*6, which felt to heavy. Changed to 13*8, which also seems heavy. Have you tried 14*4 or 13*6?
Pal
I tried it with a 14*6, which felt to heavy. Changed to 13*8, which also seems heavy. Have you tried 14*4 or 13*6?
Pal
05-09-2005, 06:16 PM
#112
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: BoulderWest Australia, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Seagull - Harrier .46 Anyone had any experience?
14-4wide was good for the fs70 ultimate in the 46 harrier and
15-4wide on the 90 harrier
15-4wide on the 90 harrier
06-22-2005, 06:48 PM
#113
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Yuma Az,Balsam Lake,Wi.,
WI
Posts: 991
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Seagull - Harrier .46 Anyone had any experience?
Hi;Looks like Horizon has the 46 here in the states price $149.95.Anybody seen any better proces here on it?How about using a Saito 65 kind of heavy but should have enough power for sport flying?
06-23-2005, 06:17 AM
#115
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Yuma Az,Balsam Lake,Wi.,
WI
Posts: 991
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Seagull - Harrier .46 Anyone had any experience?
HI Tukkus; Interesting I thought that was supposed to be a 46 size plane.Haven't seen any specs on it Horizon says nothing.Don't have a 82 handy.I have the 90 version but that has a YS 120 which to me seems a little overkill but sure flys it.Maybe should stick my YS 91 in it that would sure haul it!!Have a Saito 72 but have never been impressed with it!Just replaced a 40FP in a trainer with it will see how it works there spends most of its time back to factory being fixed.Have a Saito 91 but might as well use the YS wish I had a YS63 for it that ought to be a good combo?Thanks for hints.
06-23-2005, 06:57 AM
#116
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hemel HempsteadHerts., UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Seagull - Harrier .46 Anyone had any experience?
It's a 46 2 Stroke size model, not 46 4 stroke. I have the Harrier .46 and use a Saito 82a in it. Very very nice. I think the Saito 72 would also be pretty good but much smaller and I think you'll start to struggle.
06-23-2005, 02:38 PM
#117
Senior Member
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: salisbury,
MA
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Seagull - Harrier .46 Anyone had any experience?
Moodier if you are looking to do 3D with the plane then you would want to oversize the engine with something like the saito .82 or YS .63 a smaller engine wont give you the performance that the larger will give
06-23-2005, 03:25 PM
#118
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Yuma Az,Balsam Lake,Wi.,
WI
Posts: 991
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Seagull - Harrier .46 Anyone had any experience?
Hi;Thanks for the replies.Haven't even ordered it yet.Actually I am not much for 3D just consider lucky to go up and fly around slowly learning some of the manuvers.FInd these planes so pleasant to fly they are very forgiving and actually make people like me look like they knew what they were doing!!Have used my UcnDo a lot with a Saito65 and flys really nice but couldn't believe the smoothness of this Harrier 90 even overpowered with the YS 120 it was much better than the UcnDO.Will get moving and get one ordered looks like Horizon is the only game in town and probably not cheaper anywhere else.Have to think about that engine situation don't have much in that range handy!Thanks again!!
06-24-2005, 09:55 PM
#119
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Gloucester,
VA
Posts: 999
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Seagull - Harrier .46 Anyone had any experience?
I'll be getting my 46 size Harrier next week. I have a proven K&B 61 and a GMS 47 that I am told has gobs of power. The 61 is very light for its power, and that is the one I am planning on using. I had it in my somethin extra and it really hauled it around. Any comments?
06-24-2005, 10:32 PM
#120
Senior Member
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: salisbury,
MA
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Seagull - Harrier .46 Anyone had any experience?
It depends on what you want to do with the plane...if you're looking to hover alot i doubt the K&B 61 (i have one too) will be up to the task but it should pull it around with no problem
06-25-2005, 04:30 PM
#121
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Gloucester,
VA
Posts: 999
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Seagull - Harrier .46 Anyone had any experience?
Really? My s extra hovered quite well on that engine, and I believe the harrier is about the same weight, maybe even lighter. I thought it weighed less than 5 #'s, and that would pull out great with the 61.
07-02-2005, 07:12 PM
#123
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Gloucester,
VA
Posts: 999
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Seagull - Harrier .46 Anyone had any experience?
Well guys, I got the plane on wednesday evening, and it's now saturday evening and it's ready to fly. I basically built the whole thing today, starting at about 10. The build was easy, but for the little bit of work they leave for you to do, it still takes a long time. I figure I have about 10 hours in it, and that includes time to repair some wing ribs and also add some white stripes to the bottom of the wings. The model balances perfectly with the K&B 61, and I can move the battery to exceed the envelope in both directions. I have a Hitec Eclipse 7 radio set up with both flapperons and spoilerons. I don't know which will work well with what, but it's in there to try. The model weighs right at 6 pounds, which may be a little much for hovering. I need a 13-4 prop, and only have a 12-6. I got mine for $125 at a semi-local hobby shop, and from what I have seen, that is a very good price for a well built,(best arf I've seen to date),model. Maiden shoud happen tomorrow, weather permitting.
Eddy
Eddy
07-03-2005, 02:26 AM
#124
Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Boring Essex, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Seagull - Harrier .46 Anyone had any experience?
Just bolted a new YS 63 FZs in mine and added some fluorescent pink diamonds so i can see the thing. Will post some pics when the build is complete. Nice quality kit. Gonna test run engine now.
07-03-2005, 02:17 PM
#125
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Gloucester,
VA
Posts: 999
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Seagull - Harrier .46 Anyone had any experience?
This plane is a keeper! Flies great on the K&B 61 and a 12-6 apc. Has plenty of power to weight for good pullout, harriers extremely well, and lands at walking speed. Knife edge has coupling that I haven't figured out yet. I had some tucking in a power off dive that was fixed by raising the ailerons 4 clicks each. It was windy, so hovering was a little tricky, but it really did well. When you compare this plane to the Funtana 90, you'll throw rocks at the Funtana. I'm glad I went this route rather than the Funtana 40. It is a great plane to teach yourself 3D with. The only adjustments I need to make are to add some right thrust and nudge the cg back just a little. Other than that, she's perfect! Get one today!
Can you tell I like this plane?
Can you tell I like this plane?