opinions on Seagull
07-07-2011, 09:55 PM
#26
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Lake Grove, NY
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: opinions on Seagull
I appreciate your input and would still like to see if there is anyone who has had the Seagull Cap 232.
After my experience with the one I built where it would aggressively snap off a roll I am really on the fence about getting another.
The lateral, longitudinal and CG balance was perfect, the wings, horizontal and vertical stabs were correctly aligned, all servos were working correctly, I never found the problem before it hit the ground after the said snap trying to pull it out of a dive.
So if I get another I would like to know if it was just that model or if I could expect the same from another Cap 232 from Seagull.
After my experience with the one I built where it would aggressively snap off a roll I am really on the fence about getting another.
The lateral, longitudinal and CG balance was perfect, the wings, horizontal and vertical stabs were correctly aligned, all servos were working correctly, I never found the problem before it hit the ground after the said snap trying to pull it out of a dive.
So if I get another I would like to know if it was just that model or if I could expect the same from another Cap 232 from Seagull.
07-08-2011, 09:12 AM
#28
Member
RE: opinions on Seagull
Hi
I cannot believe what i read here. Am i the only one whohad beendisappointed by Seagull?
Iassembled the PC-9 120 and it was a desaster. The canopy didn't fit at all. There was an 1/2 inch gap on either side.
To fix this i was obliged to greatly remove the covering.
The ailerons had been too thin, producing a swirl just in front of them. Maybe thats the reason why there are so many reports about tip stalls.
I built two new ailerons.
The empenage was inclined when installed according the manual. I sanded the tail to fix this.
The fin is wry. Impossible to be fixed.
The included noseretract twists and jams during retraction.I installed a Robart 510 series gear.
The center of gravity is completely wrong in the manual. If you put the CG where the manual says, the plane doesn't even rest on its undercarrige. It falls backwards on its tail.
The control throws are a joke. Much to small. You have almost no control if set according to the manual. My control throws are 4 times bigger!
The only positive aspect on the PC-9 is, that if flies great and it looks good. But you have a long and hard way to go.
Somebody here wrote, that seagull and phoenix are the same.
I straight away believe that.
Before i bought the seagull PC-9i ordered a PC-21 fromPheonix. Ireturned itthe same day i received the kit and asked my money back.
The PC-21 from Phoenix was the worst ARF i have ever seen. Nothing fit and gaps of up to 1/4 inch almost everywhere.
The included full metal pneumatic gear even hadspots of corrosion.
I think Hangar 9, Greatplanes or Top-Flite are much better.
Of course they are more expansive, but i think they are worth it.
I cannot believe what i read here. Am i the only one whohad beendisappointed by Seagull?
Iassembled the PC-9 120 and it was a desaster. The canopy didn't fit at all. There was an 1/2 inch gap on either side.
To fix this i was obliged to greatly remove the covering.
The ailerons had been too thin, producing a swirl just in front of them. Maybe thats the reason why there are so many reports about tip stalls.
I built two new ailerons.
The empenage was inclined when installed according the manual. I sanded the tail to fix this.
The fin is wry. Impossible to be fixed.
The included noseretract twists and jams during retraction.I installed a Robart 510 series gear.
The center of gravity is completely wrong in the manual. If you put the CG where the manual says, the plane doesn't even rest on its undercarrige. It falls backwards on its tail.
The control throws are a joke. Much to small. You have almost no control if set according to the manual. My control throws are 4 times bigger!
The only positive aspect on the PC-9 is, that if flies great and it looks good. But you have a long and hard way to go.
Somebody here wrote, that seagull and phoenix are the same.
I straight away believe that.
Before i bought the seagull PC-9i ordered a PC-21 fromPheonix. Ireturned itthe same day i received the kit and asked my money back.
The PC-21 from Phoenix was the worst ARF i have ever seen. Nothing fit and gaps of up to 1/4 inch almost everywhere.
The included full metal pneumatic gear even hadspots of corrosion.
I think Hangar 9, Greatplanes or Top-Flite are much better.
Of course they are more expansive, but i think they are worth it.
10-08-2012, 06:56 AM
#30
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Broken Arrow,
OK
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: opinions on Seagull
ORIGINAL: Anderl7890
The control throws are a joke. Much to small. You have almost no control if set according to the manual. My control throws are 4 times bigger!
The control throws are a joke. Much to small. You have almost no control if set according to the manual. My control throws are 4 times bigger!
ORIGINAL: Biggles Ace Pilot
I appreciate your input and would still like to see if there is anyone who has had the Seagull Cap 232.
After my experience with the one I built where it would aggressively snap off a roll I am really on the fence about getting another.
I appreciate your input and would still like to see if there is anyone who has had the Seagull Cap 232.
After my experience with the one I built where it would aggressively snap off a roll I am really on the fence about getting another.
I mean, by design the real CAP is made to snap roll easily. The only way to avoid doing it unintentionally is to have small throws, mostly on the elevator. I am still discovering mine, got about 10 flight on it. I AM STILL FLYING IT ON SMALL RATES, as per the manual, and even reduced the ailerons rate.
BUT I do fly a full turn around pattern with it, on those "ridiculously small" control throws....
