I've just finished a Seagull Spacewalker II with an OS 46AX. I haven't flown it yet. The plane feels very heavy for a 40 size ARF and I'm wondering if the 46 is going to be enough engine to fly it well. Does anyone have this combo? I'm thinking something like a Saito 72 would be a better powerplant. Any and all comments appreciated.

I saw one fly over the weekend, it had a Rossi 53 and teh plane was fast, did not fly like how a Space walker is suppose to fly, the plane looks stable. I am sure your 46FX will haul it. If you want to fly it gently then your 46FX will suffice.

i agree,a fellow club member has one with an irvine 53 in it which is way too much, a 46 will be fine.

I've got the .46 AX in mine, it flies. Adequate power, although certainly not overpowered!


Andy

If you have the money, why not the new Saito FA-82A. It weighs a just a tad bit more than a FA-56, but is lighter than its 65 and 72 brothers. And because it has a .82 displacement, it is more powerful than its 65 and 72 brothers. What extraordinary engineering! My suggestion: if you can stretch your pocket a couple of more bucks, go for the better deal, the Saito FA-82A.

A Saito 82 on a Space Walker 40? What the heck for? Might as well put in an OS91FX ...

dead right,was the full size a rocket ship?why spoil a nice model with a whacking great motor?

Thanks for all your input. I think I'll try the 46AX and see how it goes. If I don't like how it flies then I will consider something larger.

skorman - get a Pitts style muffler if you can.

Just IMO, but a Spacewalker would look stupid streaking around the sky with that much power. This is meant to be a slow, but aerobatic plane.

How true ...

Hey, for all those out there slamming me. Look at the Official Hangar 9 Catalog. What does it read, "Recommended Engines .32-.48 2-stroke. 40-.82 4-stroke." The FA-82a is in the recommended range, and is more powerful than the FA-65 and 72, yet is lighter than the two. If you want the plane to be a slow flier, then put a low end engine in it, like the Saito FA-40, or other similar O.S., Enya, etc. If I can remember correctly, skorman wanted to put a 72 on it, which is on the high side. As common sense would say, the 72 is heavier than the 82, while the 82 is more powerful. I thought the main objective for R/C airplanes was as light as possible for the equipment in the way you want the aircraft to preform?

I also have the Spacewalker II and I have been flying it with a Saito 72 with no problems at all. Sounds great in the air and has the power to do about anything within the planes capabilities.

I agree, if I was to do it over again, I would have chosen the Saito 82 but it was not available at the time I got the 72.

Don't worry about the power and have fun.

Well I had the maiden flight today with the 46AX and it flew great. More than enough power. With an 11x6 prop it was fast and was hard to slow down for landing. I switched to a 12x4 APC and what a difference. Very scale looking in flight. Still fast enough but slowed down great for a smooth landing. Thanks to all of you for your input.

Skorman, what exhaust set up did you use? I just ordered the Bisson pitts style to go one mine. I hope to have my plane up in another week. I still can't get over the quality of this ARF.

I used the stock Saito muffler with an exaust extention running out the bottom of the cowling. The engine is mounted on its side to allow for the exaust to exit the bottom.

I have however, had problems with the end of the muffler comming loose and loosing back pressure on the engine. I have since had the muffler end welded and should never have any problems again.

Anyway, hope you enjoy your new plane and let me know how she flies.

John

I started my Spacewalker last night finally after running the Surpass 52 I got for it on the test stand. I have had a few people tell me the 52 will be ok, but I thought I'd ask you guys opinion since this thread is going anyway. BTW, I'm looking for scale-ish flight.

Thanks,
Duke

The 52 4C will suffice since you are not interested to do Torque Rolls and Inverted Harriers ...

I think you have made a good choice, Don't worry and good luck.

Thanks for ths input. This is a real beauty of a plane and the build quality (at least on mine is pretty nice). I wish I could cover curved surfaces like those guys do. Only observation/minor complaint I have is my covering seams at mid fuse are overlapped into the airflow, so any loose edge will get lifted rather than smoothed down. Is this typical of the others or just mine? Other than that, the covering gets an overall 8.5 and its drum tight out of the box.

One more thing, what servos are everyone using? I have a spare set of S3004's, I'm thinking they should be fine.

Thanks for the input, I'm looking forward to getting this in the air.
Duke

3004's should do fine. The only other thing I can really nit pick on mine was the rods for the ailerons. I put them in my z bend pliers and they just snapped, both sides. But I was able to grab the ones off my Avistar, and shorten them a little and they worked fine. I have a Pitts muffler comming in on Friday for my OS 46 AX. I am getting really excited about flying this beauty.

Did the SkyWalker II need any weight added to get it to balance. I just got one and was wondering about the engine most commonly used and the balance issue.
Thanks
Ron

With the OS 46AX, I had to add 1 oz. to the tail.

I am balancing right where the leading edge sheeting ends. Does this sound about right? If so, I dont need to add any weight at all. It balances level, to just a little nose down there. The one thing I can't figure out, when doing lateral balance, when its right side up, it balances good. When I flip it over, one wing is always heavy. I dont have any parts moving, why does it make a difference in being right side up, or up side down? It just dont make sense to me. Also did anyone use the small throw settings that the book lists for the initial flights, and how do they do? The small elevator throw look like it would not let it raise more than a 20 degree climb at best.

Its the center of gravity of the air plane that change as you invert. It really depend on the air frame design.