I was wondering if anyone had any details on a reference to marks supposedly made for placement of the cowl?? On page 14 of the manual, under the "install the cowl" section, it says to "slide the cowl to the marks made earlier"... I made no marks, Seagull made no marks and I find nothing in the instructions that says to mark it...

For those who have no yet bought theirs yet, it is a really nice ARF kit that looks to be very good quality with a less than good manual... I have sorted through most of it but this one problem mentioned above... That and the fact that with the engine mounted as instructed (112 mm from firewall), no cowl alignment really looks like it will end in a correct alignment... It looks right now as if it would be properly aligned if the engine were slide a bit back (maybe 100 mm from firewall instead) but for now I will trust that it can be done as stated in the instructions...

Well, first off, the latest issue of one of the magazines just did a review of the Seagull Spacewalker. If you have it, it mentioned that very problem. If you don't, I can find it and try to paraphrase it. I believe the reviewer offered a solution, but my memory is garbage!

Last week at our local club meeting, that Decathalon was the raffle prize. The guy that won it opened it up and went through it right there, it was very impressive. I can't speak to the hardware / tank quality, etc., but the building and covering was BEAUTIFUL. Keep posting your progress with maybe some pictures, and maybe some flight reports?

Yes I would rate the kit highly so far... The quality of the parts is a 10... The quality of the hardware is a 4 at best... The quality of the manual is a 6 because some, most things are laid out very well but some are hardly even mentioned... Completeness of the parts I would rate at 13 because most things are already done... Fuselage for instance has the pushrods, clevises, windshield, motor mount, landing gear anchors, etc... already installed... As a matter of fact, this is the third ARF I have built in the past 5 or 6 weeks (Goldberg Tiger 2 and Hangar 9 T-34) and this is by far the best...

On the down side, the hardware is pretty terrible... The cowl is not the best fit I have seen, the axles are junk, the ez connectors attempt to use nuts in place if the push on retainers and that is just a bad idea... Most of it will fly but those two things HAVE to be changed or it will lead to problems not far into the flying stage...

On an FYI note, the Horizon Hobby website's Seagull Decathlon page has a link to FAQ's as well as Hints & Tips that fill in much of the missing details the manual should have... There is no reference to the Cowl problem but the wing struts are detailed there in in the manual it is no more than 4 pictures with no text what so ever...

And, I was wrong about that magazine review. I went and found it, and that problem was NOT mentioned

I KNOW I saw it somewhere, I must have gotten 2 reviews mixed up in my head.

Keep us updated, I have a .46 and a flight pack all free looking for a possible home. That Decath would look cool on floats, no?

hello gents, here is a thread on this plane with some info you might find helpful


[link=http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/Seagull_Decathlon%21%21/m_1826229/tm.htm]Decathlon[/link]

I would be weary of this plane on a 46 on floats... I am weary of this plane on my 50... It is a real nice plane but it is also a 7.5 lb plane so it is heavy... On tar I might try a 46 but would bet it would still not be the best of planes even then... I will know more next week but if you look at the weight, type ac, and size it looks like a perfect 60 candidate...

I see what you mean. [sm=surprised.gif]

A buddy and I powered out to finish the Decathlon last week.

Like you, I was mystified about the marks for cowl placement. There were no steps that included that anywhere in the manual.

To your second comment... I went with 112mm from the firewall and found that it seemed to be the right distance to allow for breathing under the back end of the cowl (in relation to the step in the firewall there). However, the lineup with the propshaft was quite a bit off, as delivered (and as you suspect), and made for a crooked looking cowl. So, I made a compromise of trimming a little of the propshaft hole on the starboard/passenger side, and going with a little offset in the cowl direction (also to the starboard/passenger side). At this point, you wouldn't notice unless I pointed it out to you. Perhaps others have a better way, but this worked for me.

Jim

A few more comments:

I have fitted the plane with a Thunder Tiger .46 pro and found, like other posts, that the standard muffler won't fit into the muffler cavity in the firewall - this will likely be the case with any OS-like engine you attempt to install. So I ordered and mounted the Slimline Pitts muffler (the one for OS.46FX) and it fits perfectly. I added a couple pieces of silicone extension to the ends to get the exhaust well clear of the cowl. With this set up, post flight cleanup is minimal. I also found that using a .46 engine with battery and receiver stowed (stacked) 1" back from fuel tank (I made two crossmembers out of popcicle sticks CA'd to the fuse rails and strapped the stack to them) the balance comes out nearly perfect.

I also think at .46 engine is a good choice. The balance comes out right, cowl cutting is minimized and I think there was plenty of power. Remember, this is meant to be a scale-like flyer, not a 3D hovering machine! Note that I live in AZ, and flew it in 102-105 degree weather at approx. 1500 ft. ASL with no problems. If you just had to have more power, you could maybe go to a .50-.52 size engine (meaning if you can find something close or identical to the same dimensions as the .46), but I think going to a .60 size engine will make the model too heavy and adversely affect is flight characteristics.

I do agree with many of the posts on this model -- an outstanding value for the price (I paid $135+tax at my LHS). It absolutely looks great. The details, the shape, the colors, the build quality are all great. It is a bit heavy, but I believe this comes from a very sturdy build (certainly the opposite end of the spectrum of my Funtana). Some of the hardware is on the interesting/inexpensive side, but all works just fine.

Oh, almost forgot... the control throw instructions are whacked.

The Hints and Tips page for this model on Horizon's website states "The control surface throws listed on page 23 for the elevator and aileron are incorrect. The correct throws are listed in the grey shaded box on page 22." My buddy and I vote to go with the stated high rates as the low rates and used 50% expo - it was just right for me (an aileron rolls was relatively slow). I have not set high rate settings yet for this plane, but there is room to do so. I do think the stated low rate settings are way too low to be effective.

Jim

mjbernard - So your happy with the performance on a 46 fx huh? I will be flying at 500' MSL and am debating 46 or 61 fx..

Got mine finished up... I have a Mag .70 4s in it... It weighs out at a whopping 8 pounds... Beautiful looking plane though... I am waiting for some decent weather to try it... Anyone have any measurements on the throws after actually flying the plane ?... 3/16 on the elevator seems way to little (page 22) to be very effective... 7/8 on the ailerons seems like overkill...

The .46 performance is "sufficient". Trying to fit a .61 into the plane will likely leave you with a lot of extra cutting/fitting, but would certainly improve performance. The main goal would be to be able to swing a larger prop to provide for the movement of more air around the large cowling. I would suggest trying a .72 or .82 four stroke (eg. Saito) and a 13X6 or so prop if you want to step up performance.

I used an OS 70 Surpass with a Graupner 12 x 7 prop. Excellent combo