lupy

My Feedback: (3)

I noticed that Maxford is now advertising a new version 2 of the neptune. This seems to be the last 40class seamaster RTF around. Anyone have any feedback on it? It looks nice, with a carbon pylon, inboard aleron servos and such.

MinnFlyer

My Feedback: (4)

I just saw it at iHobby in Chicago and it looks great. I'd be very interested to try one

terry.mortimore

My Feedback: (1)

Hi Gang:

I received the Neptune as a Christmas gift, I've looked it over pretty good and I'm pleased with the quality. I'm going to start assembly this coming week, I'll let you know how it goes.



Cheers, Terry.

lupy

My Feedback: (3)

I bought one around thanksgiving last year, and built it light as possible for electric. I replaced the rudder because it felt heavy, and wasn't tapered properly. I also re-worked the pushrod system, as it was too sloppy and tended to stick. I used fiberglass rods and also smoothed the curved path to the elevator. On the frst flight, I was disapointed in the response from the ailerons. I found that they were too small. If you test mount them and then lay a straight edge on both sides of the wing, you will see that the aileron tapers faster than the airfoil would. This seemed to create a low pressure zone around them, making them less effective near nutral, then suddenly more effective in a turn. I found it very hard to trim for level flight. I also noticed that it was much more sensitive to cross winds than my old Lanier Mariner or my other, much heavier, seamaster. I eventually made built up ailerons that were 2.5" wide, this was a little overkill. I think that 2" would work, though 2.25" is probably best.

The other main change I made was to replace the aileron torque rods with 1.25" music wire. This made them much stiffer, and also probably contributed to the improved feel.

Overall, I am pretty happy with the flight. I am using an e-flight .32, 4cell 3600mah lipo pack and light servos, I also replaced the pod with a simple light mount. Mine came in at 88oz rtf and really floats around. For a comparison, the old seamaster which was built from a kit came in at 109oz with the same setup.

This lighter weight results in a very different feel in the air, suprising since the Neptune is almost exactly the same shape as the seamaster. The seamaster requires a lot more power to stay up, and has a much higher stall speed, but is much more wind resistant. The lighter Neptune really gets knocked around by side gusts, so I might get a heavy battery for windy days.

JimCasey

My Feedback: (1)

Lupy, I think you meant 0.125" music wire.  1.25" was used in the torsion bars of '67 Plymouths. 

SeaPlaneSupply

My Feedback: (7)

For those that miss the Seamaster so I'm coming out with a new Seaplane this summer the "CUDA" it will be a foam core fuse & wing that can be glassed or sheeted. Take a look at the web site let me know what you think http://seaplanesupply.com/cuda.htm should be a great flyer. I'll be doing a built thread as soon as we work out the details. It will be aviailable in 4 sizes and twins.
Mark
seaplanesupply.com

lupy

My Feedback: (3)

Ha!, you got me. Yes, it would be a little heavy with 1.25" rods. I used .125" as you expected. I flew mine again today, and it's really starting to grow on me. I recently got a FY-20A installed, which is a 3 axis gyro and accelerometer which can counter gusty wind, and act as an auto pilot for training. I let my 9yr old fly it some, and he had fun with it. Eventually I want to install a small camera and video link, so I do some FPV over the lake, so the extra stability will be nice. I will post some pics and some video when I get it all sorted.

JimCasey

My Feedback: (1)

That FPV video circulated about a year ago of the Blohm und Voss seaplane was one of the greatest RC videos ever made.
I hope your FPV efforts are successful.

Which begs the question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFGemmdHgTI

lupy

My Feedback: (3)

That is a nice video. I haven't flown much FPV in the last few years, just didn't have the time. Here is one I shot about 5 years ago. The video quality is pretty poor, mostly due to the Lipstick camera I was using at the time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCABB_L1Q-4

This was shot from a Donald 4, not a bad little flier, but because of the high motor mount and short tail, it suffers from pitch instability.

I have a newer camera and a better link and an on screen display I think the Neptune II with autopilot will be a much nicer platform.

lupy

My Feedback: (3)

Here is a pic of the Neptune with camera and such. It's just about ready for sea trials. The On screen Display is from eagle tree, and has barometric speed and altitude, as well as GPS for a compass, distance out, and direction home.

Oberst

Hey Lupy,

I might put a video camera on mine, but I would keep the plane in sight. No need for a GPS system unless you plan on flying out of sight? I could understand putting one on a landplane, but a seaplane? I can see the other side of most lakes, except for the big one a few miles from my house. (Lake Ontario)

Pete

lupy

My Feedback: (3)

When flying my Donald a few years ago, I found it pretty easy to get turned around when flying with goggles. My lake looks pretty small when up in the air, so it's easy to be flying without it in view. I also like having a way to see battery voltage, ESC temp, Mah used, amperage, altitude, speed, heading and distance home. The land to the south is pretty undeveloped, so I may make some longer jaunts in that direction. I may not need the GPS much once I learn the lay of the land, but for now, it's nice to have. I can turn the display on and off from the TX, so it shouldn't get in the way of recording.

Oberst

Just out of safety reasons I'd still have a spotter. Fancy setup you have there! I'd have something like that if I suspected some girls were naked sunbathing on a boat in the middle of the lake at times. ( It's a fancy way of looking without getting beat up by the wife)

Pete

lupy

My Feedback: (3)

You need a power zoom for that sort of thing. Maybe on the next plane.
Ken

Oberst

No,No Ken, all you would have to do is fly low and very slow. Pretend to have some engine problems, I bet you can get a great shot after some editing.



I asked in another Post if you all think the covering is Mono or Ultra for both versions? Do you think the the new version 2 is better, or the same as Version 1? I'd like to read some peoples opinion of the 2 versions.

Thanks,


Pete

lupy

My Feedback: (3)

I don't have a version 1, so I can't really comment on diffs.

I like the fact that they have gone to the more modern carbon joiner tube. The wing is super light, even with servos, I am amazed everything I pick it up. The inboard servos are a nice touch, but as I said before, the rod they use is pretty flexy, and it's kind of a pain to swap it out for heavier.

I have mixed feelings about the carbon tube for the motor mount. It's really light, and looks cool, but it's got to be very dragy. I might put a trailing edge on it to reduce drag, but I can't help thinking that a proper plywood pylon would be plenty strong, and a lot narrower.

The II version horiz tail comes with hard points to screw into for braces, which is needed since the vert tail is too flexy without it. I replaced the square pieces of wood they supply for braces with carbon rods. Much less drag, and a nicer look. No idea if this is in the other version.

I ended up replacing the ailerons with larger due to the way the wing tapered, (see earlier post) I have no idea if this is any diff with the neptune I version, and is really a matter of feel, but I found it a little strange.

The II version is supost to be about 6 oz lighter than the I. It's hard to say, as wood, esp from China can vary a lot. The earlier version is available for about $100, and the II version for around $160.

Oberst

I found one website that still sells the first version, but it's like $189.99. It comes in the standard yellow or the flamed version.

http://www.quicktechhobby.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?

I don't know if quicktech buys them from the factory, or they are leftovers. All I do know is Maxford no longer carries them, and they replaced it with the version II. What is nice about the Version I is the motor mount support isn't Carbon Fiber and can be sanded to make it more aerodynamic. The wood truss that holds the engine pod is only 12mm wide.

My friend who originally built the plane has the servo's in the outer wing with the clear plastic bubble on it to protect it from getting wet. However in the Fly RC Magazine they did a write up about the plane and the author installed the servo in the center of the wing and used Sullivan Gold-N-Rods out to the ailerons. It took him 2 days to do it.

But my friend told me the plastic bubbles work fine in keeping the water away from the servos. On mine I have Flaperons to help get the duck out of water. Even with the Super Tigger .51 the plane still has a long take off distance. He had a Master Airscrew 11x7, I'm switching the prop to 11X6 and adding a Tru-turn 1.5 spinner on it. I also put a airfilter and glow fuel filter on the plane, the airfilter will keep any water from spraying in carb if I have a bad takeoff or landing, or if the water is a little rough.

What does the Version II have for the covering? Does it look like Ultra or Mono?


Pete

lupy

My Feedback: (3)

http://www.valuehobby.com/products.php?category_id=55 has both the .46 and a smaller version of the Model I . $100 and $70. no idea on shipping. They also are regularly on ebay as auctions, nor sure where they end up, but I think it's about the same price.

I don't think the II is monocoat, the blue covering has a white glue layer backing. It is still shrinkable and re-stickable. I don't think it is as tough or heavy as monocoat.

The wings are a standard D, construction, fully sheeted in the front half. ribs are thin, and have lots of holes in them, but have cap strips on the outside surface for better strength. The wood looks resonable. The light ply fuse is plenty strong, but I recommend making a cradle and supporting the battery off the hull if you go electric. A few years back I bounced my seamaster on the second flight with a new $50 battery, and it ripped a hole in the light ply big enough to drop the battery through the bottom. The battery was just laying there, so it must have lifted off, then came down hard on the bounce.