Subsequent to posting my opinions and rather lengthy comments about the building of my Berkeley Seacat , the email box I listed for
any communication on the subject has changed to : <[email protected]> cuzz , Goowy is gone. It was only used for convienience anyways - so I wasn't able to view any mail I may have received - Sorry.

As suggested here and in many other places , the building of the kit has become somewhat of a mysterious pleasure. I am finding that
as I build , it is like adding weight to a balance beam , one that had alot of thought put into it's design. Not that all models are not like that , but this one , seems to have a mind of it's own and keeps tilting towards the ceiling no matter where weight is added. In other words , Struck paid attention to the lifting characteristics first , and built on to that theory of design.

I have the fuse and center section of the wing built , now I am moving on to the tail , since I am a little stuck where the drawing
seems to suggest a skid plate type trailing edge to the boat bottom , in the fuse drawing , but then contradicts that by having another
angle shot on the drawing , which clearly shows the trailing edge of the boat bottom to be like that of the end of a canoe. I am hedging towards building the trailing edge as a skid plate type which will give the plane alot more stability in the water at all times.
Also taking pressure and reliance off of the sponsons and wings. I think balance is needed since the bottom of the boat section which
starts like a destroyer hull , coming to a complete "V" at the front , tapering to the trailing edge , has no balance characteristics.
For example : trying to stand a complete "V" hull in water will only end up having the boat on it's side without a considerable bottom
or weight applied to it. I am thinking this is another mistake , or very well , just a sign of a work in progress itself.

Most of the pictures I have seen of the Seacat show the trailing edge of the boat bottom to be like that of a canoe , leaving what I feel
is a back and forth rocking motion in the water that can be cut down by using the skid plate design instead of the canoe.

Looking again at the 2 fuselage drawings , they also don't coincide very well with any attention being paid to whether or not the plane
will sit properly in the water. The length of the bottom seems a bit short , especially in the canoe style trailing edge design. It seems as if , if this were your own design , you would expect the tail to always be dipping into the water due to having too short of a base for
the entire plane to sit upon. I think the skid plate type bottom would allow the tail to skid just slightly over the water line , also very
characteristic of being nose up. It's almost as if Henry Struck had been thinking the same things when he drew the drawings himself
and drew both ideas on the 2 separate drawings as a result. It also seems to me that the entire weight of the plane is resting on this
very small area , depending on it's balancing point to be a major factor , with the wing and engine directly overhead.

Even though the difference will only be a small amount , as I will be using the same peices to build the framework of the trailing edge ,
I think the benefits will be a substantial improvement for both landing and take off stabililty , disallowing the sponsons to dig in quite so
much into the water . Instead of building the trailing edge from left to right , it will be built from top to bottom , as the full sized drawing of the fuselage suggests , but plane at the same angle. At any rate , I am working on incorporating both ideas into 1 trailing
edge , in the space that the downward curve will produce , using the skid plate design.

I am wondering if anybody can give me any information about this area of balancing , as this situation creates with respect to sponsons
and alike.

[>:][X(]