clolson

My Feedback: (7)

In Tower Hobbies "Just Announced" section they are listing a Mariner MK II. Google doesn't have much to say about it. Anyone know anything about this new version?

I've had a love/hate relationship with my original Mariner 40. Awsome looks and it has been a real croud pleaser in the air. Despite my best efforts to stay away from people, it always seems to draw spectators and boats when I fly it up at my parent's lake. I've received applause after more than one dead stick landing ... engine stops in flight, I hear comments like oh it's going to crash now, I touch down, applause ... Fortunately these are people that don't know R/C, otherwise the "oh it's going to crash now" comments would start as soon as they see my flying skills. :-)

But I wasn't 100% pleased with the end-to-end quality. I ended up having to rebuild the elevator (which would be a recommended first step for everyone before they try to fly the Mk I.) And the covering material quality (specifically the ability to shrink out the wrinkles) is way below even average arf quality. Also it has some "questionable" flying qualities by which I mean I am still scratching my head over what it does sometimes ... for example, let's just talk about the power off regime so we don't have to also factor in the engine thrust dynamics. There are times (power off) where the thing just drops like a rock. Then there are other times (power off) where it just floats along, happy as can be (more like what I would expect.) Also, this is the only plane in my fleet that I cannot set down at my feet. I haven't figured that one out ... and it's the same problem flying over water or land/snow. Might be tied to it's slightly less than predictable pitch response?

I'm still waiting for the twin engine version of the Mariner. Maybe I'll have to get one of these new MK II's and start kit bashing?

jrf

My Feedback: (551)

I checked out the ad pictures and the only thing I could see was a different sticker on the wing. It says "Mk II".

Do you think it's just a marketing ploy? "It's not selling well anymore, so let's change the name and let people think it's something new."

Jim

clolson

My Feedback: (7)

Well if the new one includes some real balsa, has better (shrinkable) covering so you can get rid of some of the horrible wrinkles, and has a better/stronger elevator joiner arrangement, then I think they'd be on the right track. And I won't mention wing/tail incidence since I haven't measured this on mine and haven't figured out if this contributes to any of the goofiness I've seen, but I'm starting to wonder ...

I don't necessarily need it to look any different, but there was some substantial things you could complain about with the original version. And my MkI is still going strong anyway ... but I am still curiouis about their new offering.

Curt.

Fast Freddy

Maybe MK II means Lanier has made some modifications and/or improved the kit? Anyone try calling Lanier and/or Tower direct to ask what MK II means? I own one and simply love it despite all its negatives. I have repaired the covering numerous times, i.e. gluing down seams, etc.

If you ask me, a flying boat needs to be fiberglassed since it's sitting in the water a fair amount of time. At some point in the near future I plan on stripping off all the Mariner covering since it's becoming a sore sight, filling in the lightening holes with light balsa sheet and fiberglassing the entire fuselage! Weight should not be an issue since it's such a light plane. To date I have already repaired the elevator halves with a U shaped metal rod. The wooden dowel was crap! I have also stripped/rebuilt the stabilzer using solid, light fiberglassed and painted balsa. Eliminates covering problems forever.

jmpshot

I have one of the first 12 Mariner's that were shipped out from Lanier back when they introduced it. I had to add quite a bit of nose weight to get it to balance out. I also had to rebuild the rudder after the first season I had it, as water must have gotten inside the covering and warped it (had the curve of a hockey stick). I agree that the covering job could have been better. I have had a bit of wrinkling and seam separation as well (occasionally have to hit it with my heat gun). Other than that, I really like my Mariner. I enjoy flying it off the water. It is very stable and glides down nicely for landings.

I saw the MkII at the Toledo Show over the weekend and asked the main man at the Lanier booth what was different. He told me that the nose has been lengthened a few inches (to reduce/eliminate having to add weight in the nose) and also that the tail is a little larger or taller. There was something else he said but I can't remember what it was.

rjbranchii

I have received my Mariner .40 Mark II and it is a nice suprise. Many of the issues of the Mark I seem to have been addressed. First off the covering job is literally perfect. Not a wrinkle, not an open seam, all overlaps of all seams identical. I have only seen one other arf come out of the box this perfect. Zero touchup to do at al. As to the material, I'm not sure but it is a low temp material (I'll hit on that in a minute. The hatches are now all flush and the hatch work is wonderful. Fits are dead flush and perfectly aligned. Hey was this thing made in Japan? (a little Detroit humor there). The fiberglass parts are all very nice. The floats are magnificent. I got this plane instead of going with the highly regarded Seamaster because I just can't stand the looks of the seamaster, this is a very real appearing airplane. My only negative comment is that the wood could have been sanded better. Its most apparent on the rudder. The wood work on the wing and ailerons is excellent. Same for the elevator and horizontal stab (which is build up and covered, the elevator is solid.). But the verticle stab and rudder could have used a better sanding to make it really perfect.

Now to the wood in the tail. It is solid, nothing soft back there like in the Mark I reports. I risked marring it to be sure it was hard enough and was willing to replace it if it was, but I didn't need to. As to the glue in the tail, no way to tell. After the reports of the Mark I I took the precaution and did a 1/8 in music wire connector recessed into the wood elevator connector which by the way is really nice hard wood. If the glue is waterproof I think they probably have the tail sturctural issue licked. After pealing open the covering, removing the bevel along the leading edge of the wood connector, and epoxying in the metal one I repplied the existing covering... which is low temp covereing like UC. and then covered over the slit with a layer of white ultracoat. Visual came out nice, since its recessed into the wood connector the hinge line is not affected. As to the glue joints, looking inside the hull they do not appear to be hot glue but something that will run a little like an epoxy. That was comforting to see. I'm an old 100% scale boat builder from the old days, I still like to see a little excess glue here and there. Gives me a warm fuzzy feeling that the joints will not be starved. This does bring me to the only stuctural concern I found, and that is the glue job of the pylon to the motor pod. I could not see any evidence of excess glue in there. None. After seeing a nice fillet of glue throughout the fuselage, that concerns me and I will go in and mix an epoxy and cabosil mix and fillet everything in there to be sure. Might be ok, but I don't like suprises.

The motor pylon and pod are pre connected and the alignment seems pretty fool proof. The parts apear all to be laser cut. There does not appear to be any way for things not to align properly. They do give the incidence of the motor, but not a reference to what, all I can assume is to the bottom of the wing, but since that is not flat, maybe they are referencing to the wing cord. The motor is supposed to be 3.5 degrees positive incidence. About the only structural changes I see I will make are the already mentioned elevator connector which I did tonight, real metal blind nuts at the wing bolt attach points... saw that issue mentioned on the Mark I so I will not leave it to chance, and I will place one bolt thru the pylon mount at the inside keel in the hull so I'm not relying completely in the epoxy glue joint. Probably not an issue, never saw it mentioned, just an old boat building habit. As a 100% scale pilot I hate long cantelevers with power applied. That really bothers me on the SeaWind and is why I went with the Mariner instead.

I talked to the Lanier Rep at Toledo and asked the differences between Mark I and Mark II. He stated that the nose was longer so balance issues should not be a problem any longer. Also he mentioned, and I have not seen any reference to it on any of the posts I have seen, that there were some wing failures in the mark I and that the wing spar has been beefed up. For him to just mention it without question about if from me tells me the company wanted to address it and saw it as a problem.

For Power I am going to drop in a Magnum .52 4 stroke which should provide plenty and give me a break in home for that motor. I don't know if the mark I had them but there are 2 plalnning pad steps that are to be placed on the bottom of the hull just in front of the main step, one on each side of the keel to help it break free easier. Someone will have to submit if these were standard on the Mark I or something new. btw, covering over the fiberglass on the bottom was perfect as well. Having seen the number of posts of covering issues and water being an interviening factor, I will probably wipe on a layer of thin CA on all the seams that are submerged or likely to be before I fly so I'm maybe a little ahead of that game. But I realize that iron on coatings were never ment to be boat hull coatings. Stitts polyfiber would be much better for that. I have used it and it is a nice system. Get their video if you are going to do one. But the result is very water proof and very nice looking. I had a 100% scale ercoupe done in it. The light version is excellent for models and gives a superb finish at reasonable wieght. If I do have a covering issue I will recover in that in a heartbeat rather than fight water issues forever.

I do have a question for Mark I users. Do you find water intrusion where the rudder and elevator pushrods exit to be a problem? Also, the Mark II uses plastic pushrods in plastic sleaves for the rudder and elevator. There is the exit point thru the fuselage where they would obviously be fixed, and a few inches behind the servos there is a partial bulkhead you glue in that they pass thru, but no other support on the way aft. Any flexing issues here? Should I upgrade to a stiffer system than they use? I have never used non metal pushrods and am leary of flexing even with metal ones in plastic sleaves that I normally encounter in ARF's. Any time I have an arf without sleeves anchored in bulkheads along the tail section I go to a carbon fiber pushrod. Obviously not real water proof so not an option here. Your thoughts and experience please.

I'll keep you posted on the build and any issues I encounter.

bob branch

Fast Freddy

RJ,
I have a MK I and do not get any water intrusion where the elevator and rudder pushrods exit the fuselage. I sealed the exit holes and pushrods with plenty of window silicone from Home Depot. I doubled the thickness of the pushrod support bulkhead behind the servos and used plenty of epoxy and never had a problem. I replaced the wooden dowel holding the elevator halves together with a u-shaped piece of music wire using plenty of epoxy after the wooden dowel failed. I also took off all covering on rudder and elevator halves, sealed the balsa with polyurethane and sprayed it with fuelproof paint. Never put any covering back on since covering kept on wrinkling and coming loose. No problem now. Did the same with the ailerons.

I called Lanier to ask what the mods to the MK II were and they said the nose was lengthened to lessen the amount of needed balance wieght, the tail was enlarged justg a tad and the plywood pylon piece that holds the engine pod was made thicker to cut down the amount of engine vibration on the entire unit.

I'll probably buy a MK II when my MK I is ready for retirement.

rjbranchii

Fast Freddy

Thanks for the info. A note on another difference from what you said, the rudder connector is no longer a dowel but a rectangular piece of wood.

bob

rjbranchii

I have now completed the wings and have found no suprises except that everything fits. The servo mounts are already glued to the servo hatches, not listed in the manual as done. The openings in the servo hatches for the servo arms are cut and the covering well sealed. The floats are very nicely done and installed easily. Only one comment here and I found it on another arf recently. The straps that go over the wing's landing gear blocks to which the float wires (or in the case of the land plane I found this in the landing gear wires) is too narrow for the straps that are screwed down over the wires. If you place the straps at 90 degrees to the wire you will miss the block. I also found they have installed what feels like a cap strip at the trailing edge of the blocks, probably to give a nicer finish which it certainly does. But you could sink a screw in there and not realize its only thin balsa an loose a float. The solution is simply to place the straps at an angle to the wires so that you hit solid wood close to the wires themselves. The two kits had different straps, so my guess is the mounting blocks are being milled by the same source for the two companies... but they were both kits assembled in China so this might be a supplier to a number of the ARF companies there. Anyway just a heads up there.

Also take note of the manual's suggestion to create a flaired entry for the wire bend into the blocks so the gear mount flush. Same thing in the floats. Also you will find a helpful little note in the manual to create a tiny bit of space for the in hull glue fillet at the base of the motor mount mast. Very nice little touches to a manual which has obviously had alot of work go into it. Another recommendation I almost did not follow but did and am glad I did, was to completely finish each wing half before joining the two halfs as we are instructed in most kits. The alignment is all handled between the spar and an alignment dowel, the fit of the center ribs perfect.... it made things alot easier installing the ailerons, servos, control horns, pushrods and floats with the half wings and without dihedral. I think I may be doing this on other kits as well. Another helpful hint from the manual which will be a "doh" when you do it, is when you join the wing halfs, instead of just using tape top and bottom to hold the halfs together, first apply a strip cordwise over the center seam on top and bottom. It keeps the epoxy from running out and risking a dry joint and creates a neat center joint. As I said, lots of thought in the manual. Seems it was done by model builders and not assemblers.

I found another item that will not require updating and has been addressed from the mark I version. I mentioned I was going to put in a real blind nut for the wing attach bolts rather than have it just go into wood which one poster mentioned failed on his mark I. I think the folks at Lanier have been really following the threads on the Mark I. I found they have already been installed. In finding so many things that have been done to correct vertually every issue that has been presented here on RCU on the mark I, I am really feeling guilty for putting in the wire joiner on the elevator. If they had just put in the manual that "the hardwood elevator joiner has been installed at the factory with a strong water proof glue" I would not have done it. But that is a major issue for me. If someone does the plane without doing it, please update us on the longevity of the joint. If someone from Lanier is listening, how about a comment?

Well, it looks like 2 evenings and one Saturday's work will have this bird ready to maiden. I should have it done tomarrow. Now if this dumb Lo pressure monster that has set up housekeeping over Michigan would get the heck out of here.... oh, I didn't mention, I live on an Island, in the middle of a bird santuary..... no problem finding a flying site. My neighbor even has a pontoon boat 100% dedicated as an aircraft carrier for float planes. Gonna get some time on this my first float plane.

bob

clolson

My Feedback: (7)

I want to clarify one point. I was very frustrated when my original mariner elevator joiner failed. My initial diagnosis was that the glue joint failed when it got wet due to the covering coming apart and I posted a rant here. However, when I finally yanked the elevator and rudder off, stripped them, and rebuilt the elevator from scratch with decent balsa, I discovered that the original elevator joiner glue joint didn't actually fail. Instead, the elevator wood broke right next to the glue joint. Classic case of the glue being stronger than the wood. I did post a correction, but in a separate message. So I just want to clarify that the glue joint did hold on the original mark I for me, it was the wood next to the joint that actually broke. (Now had they used a more conventional wire joiner, it wouldn't have been a problem.) I wouldn't feel bad about putting in a wire joiner on the mariner. It's a bit of extra work, but probably worth the extra peace of mind.

I'm still waiting for Lanier to come out with a twin engine version of the mariner. :-) Maybe I need to do some kit bashing on mine. I'm sure the wing is plenty strong to support 2 x .25's, but I'd be worried about sucking up water with the engines mounted lower.

Curt.

rjbranchii

Curt

With the wood that I ground into in the wood joiner, there is no doubt it is strong enough to do the job. I'm glad to hear it was the wood and not the glue. That gives a better feeling. This joiner is stronger than what I have in several 3D profiles. Its substantial. Really not a big deal with a dremmel. Bout 15 minutes work. BTW, the tile cutting bit for dremels is really outstanding for modeling. I hit on it when I was doing some tile work at home. It cuts everything from balsa to music wire, to stainless steel bolts with no complaint. I rarely change from it. They are aviailable at Home Depot and Lowes. Not the cheapest cutter for a dremel but the longest lasting with the most utility.

bob

Augie11

I've assembled a new one. Had a Mk I for a long time and have to concur this one is a vast improvement. As mentioned in other posts, the covering job is excellent --- best I've seen in a reasonably priced ARF. In addition, most of the problems with the MkI have been addressed. The elevator joiner is stronger, but I did reinforce it with music wire. The wing bolts now have blind nuts. The nose is longer and required zero additional weight to balance. PLEASE balance it with the tank empty! Hatches are all flush and everything that is visible is well glued. Fiberglass cloth on hull seems more sturdy. Most important, the engine support beam has been beefed up significantly. After MANY flights and minor mishaps the beam had begun to twist on the MkI probably from engine torque. Shouldn't happen here!

As for flying, only gotten in 2 flites so far to trim her out and check everything. Like my original, she is VERY sensitive on the ailerons and elevator at recommended settings. I've toned her down a bit and will be flying again soon. Gets off the water well --- I've got an OS .61 FX in her which is too much but I am flying at 5400 feet. My old one had a few flying quirks and I suspect this one will prove to be the same but heck, it's not designed as a pattern ship. I suspect that a little timely rudder input will smooth out any problems as this was the case in the past.

Overall, a MUCH better ship than the original.

rjbranchii

Well, its been a busy spring and I have not had the chance to fly off water with my new Mariner 40 MKII till tomarrow... almost. There is a problem and its a serious one. The motor mounts flex and distort under heat with a 4 stroke motor. I have run into this with one other plane, a Seagull Models Harrier 3D aerobatic plane that I mounted a Saito .91 in. As I started to break the motor in tonight she motor just shook like crazy on the first engine run. I thought it was just the pylon above the wing mount, but it turned out not.

The shaking was due to the engine mounts flexing. They are the standard type found in most RC planes. They have a beam with triangle gussets above and below the motor beam to the bulkhead mounts. These seem to work ok most of the time on 2 strokes. At least I have not had or heard of problems with them there. BUT in a 4 stroke this is the second time I have come accross the problem. There seems to be two differences in four strokes and maybe 3. The engines have to mount further out on the beams due to the induction system being at the back of the motors, so there is a longer lever arm encountered. Secondly, The cases seem to get hotter... alot hotter. I have not done any measurements but both times I have encountered this, the first with a Saito .91 in a full bodied 3D plane by Seagull Models called a harrier. Exquisite plane, incredible quality build. But I could not fly the airplane. It was just bizarre touchy and no amount of rebalancing or trimming could tame it or make it even act consistantly. On landing approach when you eased the power back it jumped 15 ft upwards, and the thing had about 1000 squares and an airfoil about 3 inches thick so it had to really slow down to land. I flew it 5 times, each time literally praying I'd get it on the ground before I killed it and each time needing about a dozen approaches to finally get it in contact with the ground. I decided it was just beyond my abilities. A returning 1960's pattern flier in our club saw it and bought it from me. He ran into the same problem. I watched him do 2 cosecutive verticle 8's without touching a control other than the throttle. Something really wierd. So he gets it on the ground and picks it up by the prop one time and all of a sudden it seems like the motor bolts have come out its so floppy. He waited for it to cool to uncowl it and it became solid! The motor mounts were looseing sturctural integrity due to the heat.

I ran into the same issue today with the seaplane. At first run I wrote the vibration off to the pylon above the wing mounting of the motor. But on the second I noticed when I advanced the throttle full forward the engine would slow down in the top 25% of the rpm range. I thought it was that I had the end point adjustment incorrect so as it was running I was playing with that adjustment in the computer portion of the radio and noticed that as I ran the trim up and down, the motor pitched up and down! As power increased the motor pitched up and this changed the throttle pushrods position to the carb and actually was closing the throttle! I was runninng about 1200 rpm below what I expected for the prop I had on. I shut it down, thinking I knew the problem and sure enough, when I pushed just maybe 6 or 8 ounces against the spinner the motor mounts deflected. I could move the motor thru almost 3/8 inch of travel.

I see 2 solutions. The first is simply to shift to aluminum mounts. They are not going to flex, no mater what temp. That is the route I will take. And I will not use this type of mounts any longer in my planes with 4 stroke motors. The second is a mount made by Dave Brown Products. It incorporates a very thick belly pan connecting the engine beams and is this is not a flat belly pan but one that curves down considerably to allow for different case sizes and thus is very rigid. It came on all my VectorFlight aerobatic planes and they pretty much did componenents a) all north american, and b) that were the best they could get for the application.

I think the third issue is probably that 4 stroke vibrate more than 2 stroke motors. But with the mount flexing this much, the issue is so profound that not much else matters. So if you anticipate a 4 stroke in the plane, definately replace the kit mounts and go to a different system. Guess I won't be flying it tomarrow after all.

sigh

bob branch

happypappy

My Feedback: (10)

Its good to hear that Lanier is listening to their customers. There is a thread over in the ARF section in RC Groups.com that tears Lanier a new one and the thread is by an experienced, older builder. I like their designs but to date have stayed away from the Lanier planes due to what I read about them. This thread has sparked a new interest in them!

oh44077

My Feedback: (5)

I have the old style mariner 40 and fly it with os61fx with no problems, flys good in the snow, excellant winter plane, had to beef up the tail rudder and the belly to prevent ice from cutting the bow.

WillySLC

I just recently purchased a MKII. I was hesitant to order the Mariner because of all the negative comments about the MKI. I have to say I am pleasantly surprised at the quality of this ARF. The covering is very nice, sealed well to the hull and no apparent problems. We finished putting it together last weekend. I'm still looking for the right opportunity to fly it.

Bill

Tsutomu Mabuchi

My Feedback: (1)

Hello,

I've got Mariner 40 recently. The specification says the engine is
40-50 2 stroke. Can we use larger 4 stroke engines like .90 size?
I'm worrying and what I think the reason for only 2 stroke in the
specification is strength of the engine pylon.
Has anybody ever used 4 stroke larger engine?
Thanks for your comments.

Tsutomu Mabuchi

Tsutomu Mabuchi

My Feedback: (1)

I found 4 stroke larger engine would increase vibration and
may break the pylon from previous comment here.
I will use 2 stroke engine. Please discard my above question.

Tsutomu Mabuchi

Augie11

We have had Mariner MkII's flying here for some time using 4-stroke .80's and 2 stroke .61's. We need the extra power as we fly above 5000 foot elevation. No pylon problems. I would think a .70 4-stroke would be fine at sea level.

Tsutomu Mabuchi

My Feedback: (1)

Thanks, your comment will help me to choose.
However the strength of the pylon seems to be marginal
for 90 size 4 stroke and I have already got a brand new
OS46SF ABC at an auction which I prefer to newer engines
since it has non remote needle. So at present I will use
2 stroke.

Tsutomu Mabuchi

Augie11

The .46 2-stroke will work well for you. Enjoy the aircraft and let us know how you do.

Augie Bruno

Tsutomu Mabuchi

My Feedback: (1)

I had a maiden flight for my Mariner last friday.
The first flight was successful, however I noticed a drift to the
right when it turns left.
So I had to add left rudder to make a coordinate turn.
There was no drift and no right rudder was required at right
turn. The wing is straight, not twisting.
If I trimmed the rudder to the left, it needed an aileron trim
to the right of course to make a straight and level flight.
I suspect this type of airplane requires engine thrust to the left
instead of neutral thrust of original design, but I don't know the
answer, appreciate your opinions. Contrary to my thinking, it
may need right engine thrust.

Tsutomu Mabuchi

Augie11

I also use rudder to coordinate my turns but do so in both left and right turns. As I do it manually, I'm not sure if I add precisely the same amount in both directions. I have the rudder trimmed to give straight flight in both horizontal and vertical flight. Have never tried to add left or right thrust to engine.

Sorry if I can't be of more help.

Augie

Tsutomu Mabuchi

My Feedback: (1)

It's normal. I don't know what is wrong with my Mariner.
Anyway, thank you for the input.

Tsutomu Mabuchi

f2titan

We like our Mariner 40. Its only had a few flight, but its nice. It's the original version, and don't have too many issues with assembily. We have an OS 61 installed. I've posted this video before. If you haven't seen it...enjoy! Or, go to Google Video, and search for "mariner 40".

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...riner+40&hl=en