RE: Great Planes Seawind  
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Tower Hobbies
Enter up to 4 keywords or Tower stock numbers
Logged in as Guest



Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
       



All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> Seaplanes >> RE: Great Planes Seawind Page: <<   < prev  33 34 35 36 37 38 39 [40] 41 42   next >   >>  

Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Great Planes Seawind - 2/8/2008 3:33:44 AM   
RVman


 

Posts: 544
Joined: 6/2/2003
From: Guelph, ON,
Status: offline 		4 15/16 is the correct distance IIRC.
Just add some foam to the existing tip floats for choppy water.
I wouldn't mess with the engine angle, otherwise throttle changes while flying will result in large trim changes. The way GP has it set up it is quite good for engine above the wing.
Leave the flaps and ailerons separate, flaperons give less aileron authority and it doesn't have a ton to begin with. The flaps are very effective.
The water rudder is sensitve, put a ton of expo and/or reduce the rudder throw for takeoffs.
This plane sits very low in the water. And it planes on the step and rear of the fuselage, remember that and it should not porpoise or very little.

_____________________________

Tom G.

(in reply to greggK)
       Post #: 976

RE: Great Planes Seawind - 2/8/2008 3:55:18 AM   
HUNTERANDJEFF


 

Posts: 533
Joined: 7/25/2007
From: E. Wenatchee, WA, USA
Status: offline 		Gregg,
When I built mine, whatever the directions said on the distance from the firewall to the backplate is a bit short. Maybe 1/16 but that is ok. You remind me of me when I got my seawind. I really over thought alot of things. Of course that is what this hobby is all about. People like you and I doing modifications to aircraft that don't perform well to make them better. But this is some advice from me. Take it with a grain of salt. I modified my seawind to the nuts. Every thing that I could think of or my friends thoughts went into the plane. I changed the incidence of the engine several times and it made no difference - only made things worse. The only mods that I did that helped were to put standard servos in the tail, put aileron stock on the hull 4" back from the step (this almost stopped the porpoising totally) and added the seamaster look alike floats to the wingtips. The plane is very sensitive on takeoff especially at high speed so I put the low rates to barely creep on the rudder. when I was taxiing slowly or flying, I switched the rudder to high rates. The engine pod structure is VERY weak and mine broke about the 10th flight. I tried to fix it but it would just keep breaking. engine torque didn't help any at all. So someone said "why don't you fix it again and then just pour foam down there to seal everything up". So I did. After a few flights, the foam soaked up the water like a sponge and the plane never flew again.
So, to sum it up, the plane is what it is. It is very beautiful and looks very nice in the air. The only changes that I would make if I had a new one (some day) is to add the tip floats, standard sized waterproof servos (inside) and to add the aileron stock behind the step. I think that it would perform nicely this way. If that was all that I did to my seawind, it would still be flying today. Someone or Great Planes needs to find a way to make that engine pod more sturdy though.
Just my 2 cents worth
Jeff

_____________________________

JeffThe only yard sales I go to is when I pick up my plane from all over the runway!!!!
Revver bro #191

(in reply to greggK)
       Post #: 977

RE: Great Planes Seawind - 2/8/2008 7:44:09 AM   
fozjared


 

Posts: 544
Joined: 7/1/2007
From: gilmer/nacogdoches, TX, USA
Status: offline 		amen to the sturdiness.. my seawinds fin broke mid flight, on its first flight! the prop buried into the fuse and down she came! if someone could come up with something that would hold we could all enjoy a gorgeous plane! i spent about 20-23hrs. finishing my arf seawind only to have it crap out in the sky and come crashing down! the only thing i could see greatplanes doing would be to add two 1/8" aluminum straps to the inside of the fin.. fiberglassing the straps in place from the bottom hull, up the sides of the fin, all the way to the top and join them to the horizontal stab.

(in reply to HUNTERANDJEFF)
       Post #: 978

RE: Great Planes Seawind - 2/8/2008 3:32:27 PM   
HUNTERANDJEFF


 

Posts: 533
Joined: 7/25/2007
From: E. Wenatchee, WA, USA
Status: offline 		Fiberglassing is what I did the first couple of times and it still broke. I never landed it hard. One time it did it in the air. In past posts that I wrote, I tell how it was done. Check them if you have the time. I only hope that Great Planes reads this thread. I love to help people and give my opinion on things. That is why I am still posting on this thread (my seawind is down forever). I am not lobbying people against this plane whatsoever but trying to help them out instead. This plane is a nice plane but just beware of the little irritating problems that it does have. If these are corrected, you will have many great hours of flying this beautiful aircraft.

If you are reading this, Great Planes, Please make an internal structure for the engine pod out of carbon fiber. If this is done, I WILL PURCHASE A NEW ONE!!! The wings need to be made out of sheeted foam like your awesome Revolver and the shoulders of the plane need to be beefed up too. I really want a new one but I cannot justify buying the existing one right now. Been there, done that.

Jeff

_____________________________

JeffThe only yard sales I go to is when I pick up my plane from all over the runway!!!!
Revver bro #191

(in reply to fozjared)
       Post #: 979

RE: Great Planes Seawind - 2/8/2008 3:43:46 PM   
normgoyer


 

Posts: 715
Joined: 5/18/2006
From: Apple Valley, CA, USA
Status: offline 		Dear Seawind builders and not so successful flyers. Here is my question; How many with serious problems modified their airplane from Great Plane's recommendatiion, mostly with regards to power? In many airplanes the answer is not more power but to learn to fly the wing and not the engine. Some of the so called Sea Wind flying cures I have read in this and other forus go against any known aeronautical rules. Norm

(in reply to HUNTERANDJEFF)
       Post #: 980

RE: Great Planes Seawind - 2/8/2008 3:55:57 PM   
greggK


 

Posts: 116
Joined: 7/1/2003
From: Annapolis, MD, USA
Status: offline 		Thanks All...
Hey NORM is that true about the real SeaWind not getting certification? and they had a sad story associated with a crash?
I have been reading your posts on all this and enjoy and appreciate your input along with the others.

(in reply to normgoyer)
       Post #: 981

RE: Great Planes Seawind - 2/8/2008 4:14:14 PM   
HUNTERANDJEFF


 

Posts: 533
Joined: 7/25/2007
From: E. Wenatchee, WA, USA
Status: offline 		That is very true norm and I greatly respect your input. I do see alot of that in this thread (advanced beginner pilots attemting this plane) it is just too hard to pass up! I have even seen seasoned vetrans in my area buy this plane to either sell it or never fly it. My Seawind flew just as good with a 70 on it vs. a 91. I always flew it scale like and it wasn't really my flying but just a few weaknesess in the airframe and other little problems. I still stand by what I said about those little irritating problems though.
Could you imagine what this plane would be like if those little problems were adressed at the factory and how many planes they would sell after that? I know every ARF has it's little problems but just these few (for this particular plane) are very hard to fix by us being that it has a sealed fiberglass fuselage. I do realize that if Great Planes attemted to adress this problem that it would cost alot of money by their R&D team but they would get it back 10 fold in sales. If it were adressed, thier sales would skyrocket and the consumers would be very happy including me.
Jeff

_____________________________

JeffThe only yard sales I go to is when I pick up my plane from all over the runway!!!!
Revver bro #191

(in reply to greggK)
       Post #: 982

RE: Great Planes Seawind - 2/8/2008 5:31:35 PM   
normgoyer


 

Posts: 715
Joined: 5/18/2006
From: Apple Valley, CA, USA
Status: offline 		I do understand that are some quality problems with the kit. There is one in our club that is never flown from water and it is also suffering from stress cracks in the problem areas. If this kit were built up from wood in the old fashioned method these cracks would not happen, but there also would not be an ARF as the labor is too intensive and the cost would be prohibitive, Fiberglass is not the correct building material for all aircraft. If it could be layed up strong enough to avoid cracks it would not fly being too heavy. Norm

(in reply to HUNTERANDJEFF)
       Post #: 983

RE: Great Planes Seawind - 2/8/2008 5:41:43 PM   
normgoyer


 

Posts: 715
Joined: 5/18/2006
From: Apple Valley, CA, USA
Status: offline 		Hi, the full scale proof of concept Seawind did crash during some tests before it was certified. Now you must remember that it was the Canadian Aeronautics Division that was certifiying it and not the FAA. If the plane had passed all the tests and had been certified under Canadian rules then the FAA would accept that within the rules of their receprocity agreement. The Canadians know what they are doing in the flying game and in some instances are more severe than our own FAA. I have not read anwhere if they found a cause for this fatal crash during the tests. All aircraft can be dangersous to those who fly them, it is all a matter of degree. Flying is risky and very intolerant of mistakes. In some of the tests required by officials the plane is put through maneuvers that it would not be flown through under normal flight, this is when accidents usually occur. When engineers first encounted the sound barrier in England they were completely baffled, until they figured out the airfoils, wing planform and control responses necessary to recover or to continue on through to the next realm of flight. Norm

(in reply to greggK)
       Post #: 984

RE: Great Planes Seawind - 2/8/2008 6:27:14 PM   
Bob93447


 

Posts: 52
Joined: 9/4/2004
From: Playa del Rey, CA, USA
Status: offline 		Gentlemen,

In my humble opinion, the stress cracks and other problems with fin weakness are exactly why the Seawind should be flown as an electric. A good electric motor and esc weigh about 12 oz. Compare that to a good .61 with muffler, 20+ oz., engine mount, throttle servo and tank, 4+ oz., plus a full load of fuel, 14 oz. So on takeoff the electric has a good 1 1/2 lbs. less on the pylon and if you've balanced your prop, one heck of a lot less vibration. Yes, by the time you add batteries the all up weight is pretty much the same, but the batteries can be mounted to hull and act a bit like the lead in the keel of a sailboat, causing the plane to want to float level and to taxi without digging the tips in a badly. Just one way of overcoming the structural limitations of this beautilful airplane.

Bob 93447

(in reply to normgoyer)
       Post #: 985

RE: Great Planes Seawind - 2/8/2008 6:51:14 PM   
paul daniel


 

Posts: 69
Joined: 9/16/2006
From: Pewaukee, WI, ALBANIA
Status: offline 		Norm: You hit the nail right on the head. I saw the Seawind and like many had to have one. I got it and it sat for a while before I got all the parts together. I read the posts of all the guys who hung big honking engines on it thinking that would get it off the water. Wing loading goes way up because they had to add more weight and it flew like trash or not at all. Moving the step was another one. I'm also a full-size pilot and could relate the take off and landing speeds and how the wing had to be configured to generate the most lift. I put a .91 Magnum 4-stroke on mine and the retacts. I used the sub-C cells for a battery pack and only had to put a small amount of weight in it. Might as well carry weight that does something anyway, right?

The first time I flew mine off land, I could not get it off the ground. Like others, I discovered that it helps a lot with flaps. This is no way a beginners plane but it flies great once you get it up, it flies great. I even did a go around when I was coming in too hot. I even had one of the servos on the wing come loose and landed the plane using the rudder only. It flies scale. My attempt off the water will need some technique. I dumped it but tried to horse it off. My bad. I'll know better next time.

We need more posters like you Norm that have a grip on the planet reality.
Paul

(in reply to normgoyer)
       Post #: 986

RE: Great Planes Seawind - 2/8/2008 7:26:37 PM   
normgoyer


 

Posts: 715
Joined: 5/18/2006
From: Apple Valley, CA, USA
Status: offline 		Thanks Paul, I have had a very long life as both an RC pilot and a commercial FAA pilot. V-5 Navy flight program right out of high school and model building since early teens. What a great life and I would not change a thing. Norm

(in reply to paul daniel)
       Post #: 987

RE: Great Planes Seawind - 2/9/2008 3:30:44 PM   
finchase4



Posts: 51
Joined: 11/23/2007
From: Hudson, FL, USA
Status: offline 		Hi Paul:

I'm in the process of building my Seawind at the moment and getting close to a maiden flight.. I read that you put a .91 Magnum 4 stroke in yours as have I. I'd like to ask your opinion of this engine and what procedures you used for break in, and what fuel are you using in yours. Also interested in what prop your using for your Seawind, and how you feel the engine goes with the plane.

Thanks for your input

Rich

(in reply to paul daniel)