sigrun

CHARGERPC9 first the important bit to keep you motivated through the myriad of niggling little problems that can keep an almost finished bird in the hanger. Seagull's PC-9 is a top flyer. A bit of a surprise really, it's a real little 'sports car'. Looks the part in the air as well. I can see she's going to become one of the firm favourites of my fleet.

As to your cowl problem, I suspect you're not alone. O.S. carbs are physically amongst the smallest, and mine (46SF) was a tight fit on the throttle arm side where I'd fitted a ball & socket assembly. If the ASP's is significantly larger, then you'll have to cut. I used a Dremel and file to cut away the cowl opening it more at the front. I also ground down its thickness a fraction, relieving the section where the throttle arm's forward most reach was. The good part is that as well as being glass reinforced, Seagull have made the cowl with some type of elasticiser in the mix so that it's quite elastic and not at all brittle to work with. The bad news is it's a shame they couldn't have spent a few more Dong on the clearcoat lacquer they sprayed over it! Ugh! Don't go near the cowl with decals or the supplied white adhesive backed (Pro)trim. They will just lift the clearcoat right off.

If your ASP carb is really wide, you may have to cut away or Dremel a neat (elongated?) hole in that section to accomodate it. Don't be concerned. Just do it. As long as you're neat in going about it, once the cowl is on and it's dressed up in flying trim no-one will even notice that that hole wasn't there in the first place.

You asked about the covering? Mine also loosened whilst I was working on it. It's Easycoat (Profilm?) and responds well to either heat gun or iron. Quite high temperature resistant. Identical to working with Profilm and similar to Monocote. Once I had finished working on mine, prior to intitial flying I went over her with a heat gun which restored the covering tension.

Interesting about your aft CG. Though fitted with the exact same engine as depicted in the 'manual' (O.S. 46SF) with everything located as suggested, mine came out nose heavy! As out U.S. cousins say...go figure!! On a positive note. Dry weight was a pleasant surprise at 2.6kg (5lb 12 oz). I had expected heavier.

Just an advisory, There'll be an +/- 1cm allowance in the 8cm recommendation, but I personally wouldn't I fly this bird with any sort of a significantly aft CG. (ie: > -2cm)

Flight report. Rudder authority is unremarkable, and I'd recommend (and did) set full rudder throw (full rates selected) for test flying, especially in windy conditions as it was on the day I test flew mine. Elevator is responsive, but nothing out of the ordinary. However, strongly suggest initial flying is done with recommended reduced throw which is more than adequate. Aileron response however is exceptionally crisp at speed. On full rates (recommended max. aileron throw) this thing rolls like a Delta Dart! Selecting low rates and recommended reduced throw for aileron for initial test flying is a must. They are sensitive at speed, so dialing in a little expo initially until you're used to them wouldn't hurt either. On this note, pay particular attention to getting your PC-9's aileron alignment as close to neutral and eliminating any play or slop in the control arms prior to your initial test flight.

Take-off and approach. The PC-9 mushes and is relatively unresponsive requiring largish delections for a laggy response at slow speeds. Torque at full power in conjunction with the mushy controls at slow airspeed will give you some anxious moments if she's out of trim on that initial test flight. She likes to be accelerated, rotated, climbed out at a conservative angle and accelerated away, so don't point her at the sky like a Super Stick or Saturn V. Especially if she's out of trim, be ready to correct her if you do.

At full throttle you'll find her a real 'lil scooter. She carves up the available airspace pretty rapidly, so be ready to stay well ahead of her or bring that throttle back once you've climbed out to a safe operating height for that initial famil. Approach config. stalls are straight ahead at quite a low airspeed. No tendency to drop a wing whatsoever. She just mushes with consequent height loss really. Slow flying qualities are safe but with the following caveat. Compared to your average RC sport or sport pattern model, control deflections required particularly of aileron are notably disparate with flight at speed, exacerbated by an equally remarkable deterioration in response. The laggy response requires anticipation. Without it, it's very easy to over control and over correct, getting into a dutch roll and unstable pitch and ROD approach type situation. Competent experienced flyers shouldn't have any problem with this, but the inexperienced might. Despite many of the recommendtions for this as a second model and first low wing model, I certainly wouldn't recommend it as such to average flyers. Not to exaggerate or give cause for fear of flying her, but this is no Mid Star or Four Star 40 ...(and I have flown those for basis of comparison).

That said, whilst the PC-9 can be approached and landed at surprisingly low speed, it's with the aforementioned unresponsiveness caveat where she's not in her ideal approach envelope and handling is mushy and uncomfortable. I'd really only use it where required of an obstructed or short field approach. For normal landings she enjoys just a bit of throttle above flight idle, though that 'bit' is critical. A little too much and she'll eat up airspace and runway and hold off forever in ground effect. Set just right and you'll know she's in the slot. A long early speed and ROD stabilised approach is what she performs best with.

Spins? Spins like a banshee. Puts my sport pattern models to shame. [X(]

Re other problems, actual or potential.

1. Cut and shortened the nose wheel steering arm grub screw to clear the engine cylinder head.

2. Painted upper sections of formers fore and aft of fuselage wing saddle to prevent ingress of exhaust residue oil soaking into the wood itself. Similarly sealed the wing saddle with tape to prevent ingress of oil and provide an air seal. Saddle surface to surface seal is remarkably poor, and fuselage saddle seat is only unreinforced 3/16" (?) balsa (no doubler ply or balsa.

3. Forget the tank sitting on the dowel nonsense. You will flood like crazy with the tank height set as recommended if you also use an inverted engine as recommended, and you may experience erratic endurance with consequent deadsticks. Not the sort of thing you want with an unfamiliar model, particularly like this one, on the first few flights. Even using an electric starter, you will have to rotate the model onto its back and start upright so bad is the flooding with the recommended config. Beware of hydraulic locking.

My initial solution was remove the dowel and lower the supplied tank onto a bed of foam on the floor, filling out above with more foam. Though that is still higher than ideal and still floods when static, it's much improved so as to not present a problem unless you leave it sitting fuelled up. Starting, tune and feed are now reliable. For the moment it will do as I put her through her famil flying. Before you lower your tank, just check the floor under the tank. Although the tank itself is supported by a former, the floor such that it is is a section of 1/16" balsa! This is all that is supporting the weight at high 'g' (think 8x its weight) of your battery! ..and possibly receiver. Mine had detached from rear former. Trickling CA into the breech and zapping it with Kicker (temporarily) fixed that. That'll also be receiving attention when I get around to modding the tank floor.

4. Flutter. Watch for this. Using the supplied rod assemblies with suggested bends at exit points in the 2mm wire rod, I'm experienceing a yawing oscillation around the normal axis which is the prelude to (rudder) flutter. It's probably exacerbated by the aerodynamic counter balance atop the fin built into the rudder design, but I'm getting low frequency oscillations which I've determined are initialised by that rudder counter balance and sustained by control rod flex. It's not a servo issue. Not present at low speed, it's unavoidably evident at full throttle. I haven't noted any elevator flutter as yet, but the supplied single rod setup to a split elevator co-joined by a single piece of wire is a best aerodynamically and structurally tenuous.

My fixes to be instituted will be initially to rewire the rods (provided the supplied wooden dowel rods themselves are stiff enough) with better quality .072 diameter 2.56 single end threaded rod, and route them supported through 'snake' guides at the exit points without a bend in the wire rod. I don't want to go to the expense of the superb Dave Brown glass shaft units unless the wooden rods themselves aren't up to speed. I'd do this first for the rudder. I then intend doing similar for the elevator, but modifying to a conventional dual arm arrangement. Providing there is no play in the control arms, the current aileron control arrangement appears fine. I will be sealing all the surface gaps (underside).

5. Fuel tank size and plumbing. Well the supplied tank works, but at a mere 7¾ ozs inc unusuable fuel, doesn't really have the legs for a typical .46 at full throttle...well for my liking at least. With it a safe 8 minute run is assured if you've plumbed right, but if you want to push 9, be prepared for silent flight and confident of your ability to consistantly set up a no-go-around perfect approach. If happy with the endurance, long term I'd refit the perfectly sound tank with a DuBro, Ernst or Sullivan stopper and metal plumbing. In my own case, I''ll be going to a 10oz unit.

6. RX aerial routing. If I were to assemble again, I'd use an antenna tube and internalise the aerial. I may yet incorporate this when I get around to it.

7. Epoxy or CA reinforce around the wing bolt seat and fuselage former into which the wing dowel holes are drilled. When the tank mods are done, this'll be another area receiving even further reinforcement by me. Both are notoriously weak points in this model.

Running my recently ex NIB low time O.S. 46SF ABC with the silencer mute removed (essential) on an APC 10x7, 10% nitro and 20% Coolpower synthetic using Enya #3 plug, inverted flight idle is reliable and power sufficient for decent enough vertical performance to accomodate top hats + ½roll up/down, stall turns + ½ roll up down etc. Straight line speed is not an issue - except for those perhaps who might exerience difficulty keeping up. This is one model which'll take you to the 'scene of the accident' real fast if you get behind it. An O.S. .46FX or AX would provide power in abundance for this model, and a .50SX would satisfy even those most demanding of "unlimited vertical". Any respectable sport .46 2 stroke will fly this model very well. IMO it'd fly very well even on a .40 such as my older ST S40K ABC, although vertical would be restrained.

Overall it's a zippy, fine flying sport model, but built to a price and to a Vietnamese 'standard'. No question they've certainly improved in leaps and bounds recently, but this model is certainly worthy of spending a little time and extra money on to bring it up to speed in terms of structural integrity, reliability and performance. Full marks for the quality of the covering and a half-decent covering job.

Fun factor and flying wise, I give her 4¾ stars. Overall I'd rate this model 4 stars out of 5. If it wasn't for the erroneous instructions, Vietnamese 'engineering' and 'design' flaws such as the fuel tank height mounting arrangement, bamboo skewer wing dowls and other flaws such as the 1/16" inadequately glued balsa floor suggested to support the weight of the battery and receiver (my RX is actually in the cabin) I'd rate it a 5. Not a competitor for World Models yet, but having lifted their game sufficienty to make them now attractive due to a pricepoint which makes the sorting out and mod pain go away.

Probably most impressive, and something I've noted said by many a Seagull PC-9 owner here, I like the handling qualities of this model so much, and the required fixes are so easy to accomodate within a reasonable $$$ and labour budget, I am very tempted to buy a second one. And it just looks superb in the air.

It has certainly aroused my curiosity about the handling qualities of the VMAR versions, in particular the larger sized variants.

sigrun

Nice pics yogi! Swiss colour scheme is also very attractive.

tIANci

If you guys think the VMAR PC9 is fast and nimble then try the VMAR CAP 231 ... its even better. Really agile and fast ... still the same old problems on covering.

Yogi-Bear

Sirgun thanks im happy with how its turned out.. ur looks great too ill post more pics when the cowl is on [8D]

CHARGERPC9

Hey guys well My PC9 is very close to its first flight, the only issue I have is the CG, with my ASP46 up front and balancing 8cm back from leading edge near the fuse as soon as i lift it the tail hits the deck its really tail heavy, Ive got my Battery pack up under the tank and even with a full tank of fuel the thing is still really tail heavy. It looks like seagull ballanced their test plane with an OS thats heavyer than my ASP, any suggestions on what I should do? Ive got the ASP as far forward as I can without modifying the engine mounts.

sigrun

Hi CHARGERPC9

Tail heavy? Sadly it does appear to be the norm from reports here, although mine was marginally nose heavy. Weird! Guess I got all the good wood in mine.

Don't fly it (initial) with the CofG greater than 2cm aft of recommended, and then only if you are a very confident/competent when flight testing. Sadly, you'll probably have to add weight to the nose to balance it. It's a real worry if it's still tail heavy with 7 ounces of fuel up front!

CHARGERPC9

Go my PC9 up yesterday and Im very happy with it, heaps of power pretty unreal roll rate. Great plane im luving the throw I put on the elevator I can pretty much do loops within the planes length

jimx5000

My Feedback: (1)

Hmmm . . well, I am getting a Seagull PC-9 together. I just bought the saito FA82 for it. Sounds like this is much more engine than anybody else is using. It is a tight fit, but I can make it work. No idea how it will balance 'cause I haven't started assembly yet. I am flying in Colorado (5800 ft.), but still it seems like a lot of extra engine.

Any comments?

Druce

I've had mine now for 3 years now and use a webra speed 50 in it .. I use a six volt battery pack up front under the fuel tank..
flys great .. It is a seagull kit. I use a zinger 11x6 prop. It is the most stable plane I ever flown and have well over 200 flights with it.. Just don't go a akzillion miles an hour with it and will do fine. Use a over sized prop on it and let the pitch do the work..

sigrun

That's a lot of ........unnecessary weight.

Just kiddin' of course...can you ever have too much engine?..!!![8D]

Lancair-RCU

I flew the maiden flight on a Seagull PC9 last week. The owner and I set it up, found the CG too far aft and had to add an ounce and a half up front as well as the battery under the tank to get it within a half a cm of the recommended 8cm. Replaced the elevator pushrod with Dubro Lazer rod. Brand new OS46FX for power, ran two tanks on the ground really rich to just into 2 stroking then set it just into 2 stroking and flew it. Left the tank setup as per instructions and had no problems with flooding so far.
Takeoffs were easy, tracks nice and straight with the usual rudder req'd to keep straight and a nice positive back stick to break ground. As far as landing it goes I found it a dream to land, every landing stuck like glue, no bounces, which for me is unusual, it appears to have tall main gear giving slight down AOA on the ground, so once down it stuck.
I was VERY surprised by the model, it needed one click of down and two of right trim to fly steady hands off. I agree with all of Sigruns coments above re its handling and throw set ups etc. Rudder at high rates as per instructions was just enough for sustained knife edge at full throttle. All up a very nice model to fly and looks great in the air.
The owner has only flown one of the advanced 3 channel firebirds and had no problems handing this aircraft once in the air (Flying mode2) once he got ahead of the plane. A few more flights getting used to it and he'll be shooting approaches and landings.
The only complaint I have is the cowling. This one is shocking. With the engine as far back as itll go the cowl is not long enough and with the top of the cowl inline with the rest of the fuselage top, the front of the cowl, where it meets the spinner is off angle. With a spinner on and clearing the cowl at the top, there'll be a gap of almost a cm at the bottom of the cowling, looks bad to me. Itll need some blocks of hardwood glue to the firewall to install, not enough cowl to screw into the timber behind the firewall. Just a shocking design. We looked at two others in the LHS and they're both the same.

sigrun

Hi Lancair

Something else to watch out for with that PC-9 cowling. It's pretty good at obstructing engine cooling.

After considerable experimentation with mine, I agree with young Adrian's statement made earlier in this lengthy thread which he attributed to his dad. That cowling looks great, (see postscript) but the engine definitely runs much hotter with it on. Oil becomes a much more important part of the heat dissipation process, so IME it's necesssary to tune the engine richer for take-off to accommodate the later leaning peak.

Gauging from the comments here, I must've been particularly lucky to get one which balanced on the recommended CG OOTB and weighing in at only 2.6kg.

I love flying this bird.

PS: The front of the supplied cowl doesn't fit close or parallel to the spinner backplate. I know I thought its fitment odd as well initially, but just fit it so that the rear is pretty much a uniform spaced fit (?) cm in all round the fuselage firewall. Though it (cowl) could be engineered better at the factory, it nevertheless looks good once on and in the air. See image below.

TRF-StEvE

Hey guys baught an excellent condition seagul models pc9 for 60 bucks AUD$ seconf hand. it's tunning a 40 size o.s. and flys very well, i have heaps of fun with it. loops, rolls, blenders etc are a breeze. any one in the south east queensland region with one wanna get together and fly them formation etc ?

Wully

My Feedback: (26)

Hi Adrian,
Just bought a Seagull PC- 9 and installed a OS 46fx. Having problems with the carb flooding. Can it be the tank is mounted too high? I installed it in the hole that was cut from the factory.
HELP.
Frank

Wully

My Feedback: (26)

Is your engine inverted? I just bought a used one and I can't hardly start it because the carb fills up with fuel.
HELP.
Frank

Wully

My Feedback: (26)

Your bird looks good.

I bought one last week and having troubles with the carb flooding. Is your tank mounted high or as low as it will go. I bought it used so I do not have instructions. Thanks for any help.
Frank

jcilia

My Vmar PC9 needed 50g on the nose with an MDS 48 it is too tail heavy, now rebuilt as I had lost the 50g during flight and it became uncontrolable. Haven't flown it yet but not looks super tail heavy after re-building.

sigrun

SRpropTwister

Following refers only to Seagull's PC-9.

With the engine and tank mounted as per instructions OOTB, the engine will flood notoriously on the ground, and an undesirable rich through lean variance in the air as the smallish for a .46 tank empties. If you are going to run it like this, don't refuel until just before you are ready to actually start & fly, AND start the engine from inverted.

The OOTB fuel tank - carby height inter-relationship is one of the several items that need to be addressed in this ARF, and one really requiring minor surgery to properly rectify. Though an utter nuisance, the model itself is such a great flying unit, it's really worth addressing.

Just removing the dowel, lowering the tank and surrounding it with foam will improve it, but doesn't eliminate the feed problem.

The two alternative solutions are;

1. To side mount the engine which raises the carb height simultaneously elimiinating fuel & oil pooling in the plug for starting. Doing this in conjunction with lowering the tank slightly by removing the dowel surrounding it in a cushion of ¼" foam will greatly improve both starting and feed; or,
2. Neatly cut away the bottom fuselage section immediately below the tank. With the tank preferably encapsulated in a ¼" thick surrounding foam buffer, or as you intend to install it, adjust the tank height so that it sits at the correct height for the inverted carb, then construct a false supporting floorpiece and supporting roof framework to structurally seat it there. CA the fuselage bottom piece back in place and seal, recover or patch as desired.

hoss690

My Feedback: (2)

is this thread still alive? im thinking of buying a seagull pc9 i already have an st 45 for it would this be a good way to go? i cant decide between the seagull pc9 or the vmar texan 2 ive read this whole thread and it sounds like the seagull is the better quality but i like the looks of the texan better.any one have any advice? thanx

Yogi-Bear

I'm flying a VMAR PC9 it flys like its on rails flew it in a strong wind the other day and it tracked beautifully and on full rates with the ys .63 it is so entertaing, go to ur local hobby store and check out the two kits to see what you like... i'm enjoying the VMAR it flys very well

RLefebvre

My Feedback: (1)

Just wanted to a put a note and some pics in this thread, since I don't recall anybody posting pics of the Canadian version.

I had picked up the VMAR in RCAF version last fall and put it together. Had many of the same issues as everyone else. The wood seemed like light pine instead of balsa. The hardware was pretty cheap and I replaced with Dubro stuff (horns, etc). The power pod construction was neat, but more of a gimick than anything. I can't figure any reason why I'd ever want to remove the power system like that. The covering was a little tricky, but it did look great with all the detail printed in. Mine had a few wrinkles which I tried to iron out, only made it worse until I turned the heat down. I actually found a hair dryer worked well.

It was my first low wing, had somebody else take it up, flew great. I really did like the way it flew, very smooth and stable. I took it up a second time, and on landing approach I got disoriented and cratered it. There wasn't much left. [&o]

The root of the problem was the all dark blue semi-flat paint scheme, I just lost sight of which way was up.

Too bad, I really liked the paint scheme, neat having a Canadian version. I wish somebody else made one, as I'd like to build another, a little bigger, with retracts and flaps, but I won't buy a VMAR again.

Anyway, here's some pics.

Wully

My Feedback: (26)

Can you tell me how to insert pics on a reply?
Thanks,
Frank

sigrun

Yes. An ABC ST45 would be adequate for Seagull PC-9. Hopelessly underpowered for anything approaching respectable performance for the VMAR Texan II. Quality is on about a par, with advantage all round going to Seagull. Covering on Seagull is way superior, but deco is a matter of taste. Admittedly the Texan scheme does look attractive if panel lines and rivetting inarguably exaggerated. All largely academic, as at 10 feet let alone 100, they both look the business.

Seagull is the viceless flier of the two. If buying the VMAR, plan on using a stronger engine than a typical .46. A strong .53 (weight of a .46 but power approaching a .61) is probably the ideal. A ST.61 (cheap choice) or OS .61FX will have sufficient oomph, but are heavish (+10oz) exacerbating the horrendous dynamic tip stalling tendency of the VMAR through increasing the speed at which AoA inducing stall occurs.

More care and skill is required in flying the VMAR to keep it in one piece for long. If you like it buy it, but be aware of its idiosyncrasies, fly it accordingly when in the zero mistakes high envelope or on approach, and power it appropriately. Paraphrasing their box art, when they say "suits .46 to .61" they're kiddin' 'bout the .46 part....

sigrun

Sure. Read the "How to" in the Help and FAQ sections of this site, then do a practice run in the TEST forum.

jcilia

I will not touch VMAR anymore, the wood quality is really bad, and this model does have a number of vices. Looks great when flying but I have had my fair share of problems

Joe