Ingieuk

Hey,
Has anyoine had any past experience with the Seagull Harrier .46?
either about the company or about the plane as i have never orderd from them before. Its not the prettiest plane but at £85 i don't think i could go wrong!
I think im gonna power it using a SC .53 2 stroke. Which means i think ill upgrade the fixings 'cos im pretty sure the clevis will be plastic etc..
Thanks for any info you guys can yeild!
Cya,
Ingie

wessman

No 1 seems to care about this bird .....at least, can´t find any review on the net []. Anyways, I´ll get one immediately once they arrive here [8D] .

BR, Peter

Ingieuk

no, i havn't seen any either but i can't find the Seagull Homepage (if they have one)
I'v ordered one from My hobbies and it should be coming monday! Yay!
The .90 version looks oh-so cool in blue but a .90 2 stroke engine is a bit much for me at the moment!
....ill have to do a few more paper rounds...

Barry Cazier

My Feedback: (17)

There is a thread on this airplane in this forum. Just run a search and you'll find it. The plane isn't available in the USA but everything I read on the thread said it was excellent. One man has his built and ready to fly. He took pictures of the build. Pretty good thread. I know the bigger brother is available here. I don't have personal experience with that plane but from what I've seen and been able to read it is an excellent airplane. In fact I think it's going to be my next plane.
Thanks,
Barry

wessman

Seagull´s home page: http://www.seagullmodels.com/

does´t help much in this case as there ain´t no info about any Harrier

BR, Peter

Gizmo-RCU

My Feedback: (27)

I just purchased the larger one last week and have it about ready to go. If it flys as well as it is constructed and covered I will be very happy. It is very well done with the exception of some of the hardware such as low grade bolts, but that's me.
I have a 108 Magnum on mine, time will tell.......

Bodge

I have just finished and flown mine. I ordered the 90 version but they sent the 46. I liked the look of it so much I kept it and ordered the 90 as well.

I was a bit wary of Seagull kits, having had an "experience" with one of their's breaking in the air. However, after reading the threads on the 90 I thought I'd go for it. I'm glad I did because the (46) kit quality is excellent and it goes together very well. In fact there is little to do - no wing joining (you don't get epoxy up your arms and all over everywhere). The hardest part of assembling this model is fixing the control horns and the linkages. The finished model looks very neat and tidy.

I have fitted an ASP 61 four stroke. I was a bit concerned whether it would have enough power, but it is a very smooth and consistent engine and pulls this plane out of hovers on its 13x4 APS no problem. In fact it has unlimited vertical. I had an ASP 46 and a 52 two stroke to choose from but I'm glad I went for the four stroke for this model - it makes a good combination. It would go like hell with a two-stroke but I don't think you would get the same degree of control and after all - this isn't a speed model...

I don't know what the weight is yet but it seems very light. I have flapperons and spoilerons mixed in

For the first flight the weather was clear but very cold with a 10 - 15 mph wind. My cold fingers finally got the 61 set up - the last time it ran was in the summer, and taxied out onto the strip. The model was sitting a bit flat because I replaced the tail wheel which lifted the tail slightly. The take-off run was rather extended as a result and all of a sudden the Harrier leapt up vertically as I was hanging on up elevator to get the damn thing in the air. Anyway, it soon recovered and on low rate settings surpried me with its manouverability. I tried the full rates (as the y are recommended in the manual) and the roll rate is so fast and axial that it flies like a dart - very impressive. On low rates the model is so easy to control making all the rolling manouvres seem easy.

In fact, I can verify what most of the guys have been saying about the 90 version. The 46 is ultra aerobatic and knife edges easily with little coupling - it will probably KE loop on the ASP 61 when I've had a bit more practice. The landings are remarkable - it just harriers in to a three point landing without rolling on the wheels. It just needs a little spoileron mixing in. Oh yes, the harriers are quite stable - I was flying it backwards in the wind. Hovers are a manouvre I have needed to persevere with - this one locks straight in and needs virtually no control input to maintain. Easy!

Most impressive though are the rolls. You can roll it anywhere for as long and as slow as you like - loops, circles. It's that positive and accurate on the controls.

This is a great little plane and I'm looking forward to getting some more flying in with it.

I'm also looking forward to getting the Harrier 90 together. I have an MVVS 91 and throttle pipe for that one...

Bodge

I did include some photos with the last post but clearly that didn't happen. I'll try again with the piccies...

If they have uploaded okay you can see the holes in the wing ribs for the ally tubes. You slide the wings onto the tubes then fasten them with hand screws from the inside of the fuz. The removal canopy is a great idea - you can get at everything, including the fuel tank. Mine goes into the back of the car in one piece - 48" span.

Bodge

By the way, the model should balance between 140 and 150 mm from the LE. My engine weighs the same as the recommended 2c size and I have positioned a 1400mA hr NiMh under the tank right behind the front bulkhead. My plane balances at 160mm and I left it at that because I have flown first fligts without the cowl. This CG seems fine for the model. There is no undue twitchiness normally associated with a too far rearward ballance.

I reckon you could get a 91 four stroke in there though and it would balance out okay.

If you were a bit of a nutter, that is...

Ingieuk

Hey it came! woooo! it came on wendesday (well done my hobbies!).
I'm being honest by saying i really can not believe how good on first inspection this aircraft is.
Looking through the hardware i found ali wing joiners, METAL clevises, good quality tail wheel and some really quite ingenious ways of fixing the main hatch. I really was amazed by the build quality too, though i found the cross brace just behind the hatch was broken which may have indicated signs of the fus being crushed?

I have bulit about 5 ARTF's before from the Ripmax Nova Trainer to the Haagr 9 pizzaz 3d (guess what happened to that) and all have had plastic clevis and a couple had string pushrods instead of goodpiano wire. The Harrier is such good quality i would have expected it to be £150 like the Funtana. But £85? it realyis the highest quality artf iv ever seen!

thanx for any info
ingie

Bodge

Ingie,

Wait until you fly it! What motor do you have for it? Arrived on Wednesday? It should be finished now...

The 46 is so easy to hover. It took me three flights to realise I was overcontrolling badly - now I leave things alone and it just sits there, with light brushes on the sticks.

You will also be surprised at how it rolls - rotates right around the centre line of the fuz. You can fly through a tank rolling.

Let us know how you get on.

Bodge

So what's the weather like in Durham - the far north...? I lived in Burnhope for many years - 'kin cold up there...

Ingieuk

Hey,
I'm using an S.C. 53 2stroke with the normal muffler, though im not sure what prop to use. I was using a 11x5 bolly clubman on the pizzaz and it went really well but the model shop im closest too seems to stock only bendy RAM and the odd APC which get snatched up quick.

A couple of months ago i bought the new Futaba 7CAP, a superb piec e of kit, and iv been waiting touse some of the more advanced features. I was thinking of putting the two elevator servos into 2 different elevator sockets and mix them together on a switch so you could use them as normal elevators or as extra ailerons aswell as elevators (ailervators? lol). Its probably not needed but it would be fun to have the option.

'fraid i cant start it until maybe monday due excessive coursework! (yawn)

As i write there is thick fog believe it or not but i think the sun is starting to break through and hopefully i will be flying tomorrow! yea it is cold!!!

Bodge

The 53 will be revving well on a 11x5: I get many of my props from Just Engines - they only take a couple of days at most and are cheaper than the shops. I have the ASP 52 and find that a 13x4 standard or wide blade is good. I am actually using the ASP 61 FS, still with the 13x4.

I have the FF6 but I find I am often one channel short - I have to "Y" the elevator servos. Otherwise it's a good transmitter.

It's a superb day here - I've just got back from flying the Harrier and it was very warm. Recorded the F1 Qualifying while I was out and now I'm going to sit down and watch it while my dinner is being made. Out flying again tomorrow - It's a hard life...(sigh).

Gizmo-RCU

My Feedback: (27)

Go to the RCU Magizine on the Home Page. They have a really good review on the 90 size. I found it interesting and very imformative as I am in the process of the final stages on my 90 size.
The quality is soooo much better than the UCD's, I know because I have a 46 size that will be going soon If the Harrier flys as well as it's constructed.

Bodge

I initially intended to buy the 90 version but the distributers sent the 46 by mistake. I was trying to fit a Saito 100 when I realised the mistake (no, not really, I'm lying). Anyway, I liked the look of the Harrier 46 so much I kept it and ordered the 90 as well. It comes in a HUGE box. I'm putting that together next week-end. Apart from the cyano hinges the only gluing needed is on the stab - the wings plug in so no joining and there's no fin (vertical stab) just a biiig rudder tacked on the end of the fuz.

If the 90 flies as well as the 46 I will be well pleased. The 46 seems to do everything well and is still easy to fly with enormous control throws. If you wack on full elevator it sort of goes round in a jerky triangle about 4 foot on a side. Knife edges well but you need to be gentle on the controls to avoid sharp coupling reactions - nothing excessive though. I'm not going to bother mixing it out.

Bodge

Couple of piccies....

sigrun

Hi Bodge

I've got one of these things on the way. Should be here tomorrow. In the two stroke department, I have just the thing. Irvine .53 which is even a colour match! But as you say, this model seems to scream "fit me with a four stroke!".

Tossing up whether to or not? In that light, is that FS .61 truly enough engine for the Harrrier, or could it really use more? The problem I perceive is that with a 4 stroke, as you go up in capacity from there (.61), they start getting considerably heavier such that it's a bit of a dog chasing the tail thingy going to just a .70 for such a significant increase in weight whereas a .90 (approximately same weight as the 70) seems just a bit over the top in this model. Presumably with a bit more time on the combol since your last post, your thoughts?

Bodge

Sigrun,

Yes, my thoughts entirely. I like the response of the four strokes but the ASP 61 is about as large as you go before a big hike in weight. The 61 is a great engine - consistent, reliable and weighs the same as the 46s, but unfortunately it's not that powerful. It does, however, hover the Harrier 46 and allows a fairly positive pull out. I have an ASP 46 and a 52 two stroke, either of which pull better than the 61FS. Since they all use the same mounting I would only need to re-route the throttle push rod to change engines. I shall stick with the 4 stroke in this model though.

I have the 90 version still in its box - I have an MVVS 91 with throttle pipe earmarked for that one... The MVVS pulls like a tractor and spins up a 16 x 4 wide blade instantly. Better than the Saito 100...??? We'll see.

Ingieuk

Wow! you lot have some expeeeeeeesive engines! lol it takes me weeks to save up for stuff! I went half n half on the Harrier with my dad. I have a Breitling CAP232 with a lovely burbling S.C .91 4 stroke in it- i love that combination to bits and it pulls like hell on a wide 14x6. I do see where you are coming from with the airframe screamin for a 4stroke, i like the look of the new S.C 70 4 stroke but that may come later.... the undercarriage seems raked back a long way in your photos Bodge does it pitch on grass, i see you have left the spats off.
cya

Bodge

Ingie,

By now you will have seen my previous post and the near demise of the Harrier. That's not put me off the Harrier 46 at all. I still think it's a great model - even more so now that I've had the chance to give it some flying. I'll have a word with Inwoods - they are very good and I'm sure we can come to some agreement.

The wheel position is fine, although when you are taxiing, if there's a bit of wind it can get under the tail, lift it and stop the prop. You need to keep full up elevator on while taxiing.

I think the 90 size of planes is about optimum for me. I like the larger model (from the 46 size) but they are not too large to transport in the car. 120 models might not look much larger but they are a bit more cumbersome, getting them in and out of the house and the car. I have an ASP 91 four stroke - similar, if not identical to the SC 91 and it's a great engine. Mine too pulls like a train with a 14 x 6.

I think the MVVS will give me a little more power though for the Harrier 90 and it's a very light engine for its size. So the four stroke will have to stay in its box as far as that plane is concerned...

Cheers,

Bodge

Okay, maybe you didn't see my previous post (I don't know what went wrong but it didn't upload).

I was pulling some tight manouvres with the Harrier 46 and there was a crack. I got the plane down with some difficulty (including a cartwheel on landing) and found nearly all the ribs in the left wing had broken along the leading edge. The covering had disappeared from the front of the wing which made the flying difficult.

I think the plane was being flown as it was intended to be so I believe there was a fault somewhere - the two outboard ribs were damaged when I received the plane so it was perhaps due to that.

As I say, it's not put me off the model - the more I've been flying it the better I'm liking the plane. Pity though...

sigrun

Hi Bodge

Your "previous post" was indeed scribed in 'invisible ink'.

Chicken or egg, (?) though it does sound as if the covering may have come loose first.

If you'll excuse my ad hoc hypothesis (can't help myself, the inquiring mind just wants to know why) I suspect that'd transfer the stress including torshional loads directly to the airframe, notably to the spar. It sounds as if that is what has happened, and the spar has twisted within its elastic limit if it hasn't broken, but unfortunately and perhaps exacerbated by the already fractured outer ribs, the ribs have exceeded theirs cracking/separating uniformly along the same/spar line. I suspect the covering would have to come loose first to weaken the structural integrity sufficiently to allow the degree of twist to cause that king of failure.

If it was a rib or perhaps two of the airframe itself, the spar, covering, and rest of the ribs would more than probably have absorb the additional load unless the compromised ribs were adjacent and nearer the root. In any case I'll certainly check mine when it arrives for both structural integrity and loose covering. You probably already know, but just in case you don't Seagull use Oracover (proprietarily marketed as Profilm down here) which adheres with a weaker bond than Monocote IME, particularly if insufficient heat is used in application.

Thanks for the warning. Glad to hear of your 'save', cartwheel excused under the circumstances. Well done! [X(]

Bodge

Sigrun,

Streuth, there's some big words in that post mate!

I couldn't be certain but I think the ribs and covering gave way at once. There was a sharp crack and the model started spiraling immediately. The main wing support comes from the two ally tubes - the wing is built around two cardboard tubes that the the aluminium tubes slot into.

I think the wing pulled away from the the tube outers - the ribs have actually split away from the forward one.

I guess it's one of those things - the other wing didn't break after all, so I'm remaining philosophical...

Ingieuk

Argh! what do you th ink might have caused it? I'm not sure which will have happened first, the covering coming awa y or the ribs cracking.
Were you at a high throttle pulling really tightmaneaouvers? although as you say that should still be within the capabilities of the model.
hhhhhmmmmmm hope you fix it
ingie