av8r1

Which is better? They seem to be the same plane (both made in Vietnam) with slightly different covering, identical specs for wingspan and length but very different wing area, 768 sq. in. for the Seagull and 639 sq. in. for the Graupner. That's almost a sqare foot different. That's a lot of wing area. With everything else being the same, I don't see how the wing area can be so different.

The all up weight specs are different too with the Seagull being a little confusing at either 6-7 lbs. or 7.4 lbs. on Horizon's web site, and the Graupner being 90 oz. (5.6 lbs.) on Hobby Lobby's site. That's almost 2 lbs. weight difference.

Based on these numbers, the Seagull's wing loading at 7.4 lbs AUW would be about 22 oz./sq. ft. and the Graupner would be about 20 oz./sq. ft. But, if the Seagull can really have a weight of 6 lbs., its wing loading would be only 18 oz./sq. ft.

If anybody has any experience with these planes, I'd sure like to hear what you think of them as far as quality of construction and flying ability, and what the difference between them really is.

Thanks.

jcflysrc

My Feedback: (50)

That's going to be hard one to answer. It all depends...I heard they both fly great!

Jim C

SJN

Im VERY pleased with my extra from graupner.

I fly the heck out of mine with a webra 90 in it.

Just make sure you use alot of epoxy on the wing joiner, because it is a loose fit, and install the tail braces....which are included in the kit [8D]

av8r1

SJN,

Thanks for the reply. I'm glad to hear you're happy with it. I've heard that about the wing joiner. How long have you had it and did you get it from Hobby Lobby?

SJN

Its actualy my second. the first one died dur to radio failure, and had a 60 size engine in it. It NEEDS a 90 to be graet!

Ive had my new one with the 90 for 8 months now.

Bought mine here in Denmark.

av8r1

The reason I asked is there seem to be different versions of it, some with engine holes already cut in the cowling-some not, some with the tail braces in the kit-some not, some with the female pilot-some with the male. Trying to figure out what the latest version has.

How did it fly with the 60 size engine and which one was it?

SJN

Had a magnum 65GP in it.

It flew fine......but its not nearly as fun. if you are going to buy a new engine, get a 90 size.


My first kit had a hole in the cowl and tail braces, and my second had no hole, and also included braces. Both kits had patty in them

SJN

heres the magnum.....not much power it it [8D]

av8r1

Did you have to beef up the firewall to put a 90 size engine on it?

SJN

nope....all stock.

But, I did smear some wood glue around everything I could reach in the servo bay.......It was a rainy day, and I was bored

I did rip the landing gear plate out once when I had a rough landing. It broke out clean, and was easily epoxied back again. It seemed to be glued in good enough as it was......

Sarah_F

I had a Graupner Extra with an OS 61. It flew fine, but an OS 91 would have been a bit better. It was great for conventional aerobatics but starting a climb from slow flight showed the limits on the OS 61.

You can make it a little lighter by fitting a carbon undercarriage and maybe removing the aluminium tube supports for the rear control surface push rods.

The down side of the graupner is that it is very slippery through the air and landings can be a bit on the fast time. Though if you come in with the nose higher and with some throttle it is easier.

The pre cut away cowl is great for an OS 61/91 but may need modifiying for other engines. The tail braces are required as some of the early models suffered from the horizontal stabiliser shearing at the fuselage joint.

The finish on the covering and the cowl is excellent, a lovely plane to fly.

Regards,

Sarah

flightexpress

My Feedback: (2)

I have a seagull Extra 300 with a FX 61.. I love the plane..Although If I was going to do it again I would put a FX 91 in it...But Over all the planes goes together and flys nice...I have heard alot of good things about the Graupner but never owned on myself................Kurt

av8r1

If I do this, I'll probably start with a .61, either an OS FX, a Thunder Tiger Pro, or Evolution. I'd like to put a Pitts muffler on it to avoid cutting the big hole in that nice cowl. I'd also like to see how it likes flaperons for slower landings.

flightexpress: did your Seagull come with the tail braces? The one at my LHS appears to have them but I don't see anything in the bag to attach them to the aluminum strip at the bottom of the fuselage or to the posts that go through the stab. There are 4 short rods threaded on one end. I assume 2 of them are for the aileron servos and the other 2 are for the tail braces, but I don't see any fasteners to go on the ends of the rods.

It looks like the Graupner comes with metal clevises that get soldered to the rods, but I couldn't see any metal clevises in the Seagull parts bags, just nylon ones for the control horns.

av8r1

Sarah & Kurt:

Did your OS .61 FX's fit ok on the stock mount?

Thanks.

ez2bgman

My Feedback: (4)

av8r1,

If you're in the market for a 60 size Extra, than you really need to check out Vectorflight's offer. Do a forum search for Vectorflight and you will see all the positive replies about the planes and the company. I have a VF Edge 540 on order that I will probably put either an O.S. 91 FX or a Saito 1.00.

Give their website a try: www.vectorflight.com.

Good luck with your selection.

Primodus

My Feedback: (56)

I will second the Vectorflight recommendation. I have done the searches and read the posts on them, very impressive. They also have 2 sizes for the Extra. Both of which are at extremely low prices for the quality of model you get.

www.vectorflight.com

flightexpress

My Feedback: (2)

av8r1

Yes the tail braces came with the plane....And yes my 61FX fits on the motor mount..That egine is a really good one for that engine..Overall you can't go wrong with either plane..I have them both at one time but I sold the Graupner so now I just fly the Seagull.................Kurt

av8r1

Thanks for the input on the Vector Flights. I checked them out before after reading good things about them, but when I looked at their website I found the wing loadings were quite high compared to these planes, so I figured they would be pretty heavy and fast birds and didn't pursue it any further. I'll do some searching and try to get some flight reports. If they fly like I want to fly maybe that will be the way to go.

WALKERS210-RCU

My Feedback: (36)

I have the Seagull Extra 300 and think it is a super great plane. The only thing that I had doubt on and still do is the size of fuel tank. I plan on changeing it in next few days. I have only had about three flights on it and opened it up one time. Satio 91 on front and programed in PMix's to link the elevator halves with the ailrons. Flip of switch and it will spin like its on a wire. Landings had me a little concerned but it settles down and lands great with a couple clicks of throttle. Has anyone else changed the fuel tank or should I just back off the gas a little to lengthen the flight time.

av8r1

Sorry I missed your post somehow. There's some info about changing the fuel tank in another thread somewhere. If I run across it again I'll post a link. How well did the Saito 91 fit to the included mount and the cowl?

WALKERS210-RCU

My Feedback: (36)

The Satio fit in very well, I was going to mount it inverted but decided to mount it on side. The cowl lenght was questionable at first but only left a very small gap at the landing gear, nothing to be overly concerned about. The Satio 91 is a perfect match for this plane, due to health I have not been able to put much time on it but hopefully this weekend will get to put some airtime on it.

av8r1

So, you mounted the engine on the existing mount that was pre-installed on the kit? I'm thinking of using a Saito .100 since that's what Horizon Hobby recommends, but I was having doubts as to how well it would fit the existing mount & cowl. Do you mean to say that with the .91 there's a gap between the cowl and the front of the fuselage? I'll have to check the dimensions of the .91 & .100 against each other.

I found a couple of the threads with discussions of fuel tanks on this plane. It seems some have replaced the stock 8 oz. one with 10 or 12 oz. Sullivan flex tanks or 12 oz. Dubro in one case.

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_13...tm.htm#1363384

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_11...tm.htm#1148753

N1EDM

My Feedback: (2)

I'm going to throw a hook into this thread, I think.

Have you looked at the Yellow Aircraft 60-sized planes? They're more expensive but very nice.

Just a thought...

Bob

ckangaroo70

My Feedback: (51)

I will have to be the 3rd in this post to recommend the VectorFlight line of Planes. I know that this is not the subject of this post, but I think the fellow who started this post might want to give VectorFlight a good look, and do some good researching on these Planes before he makes the decision. These are undoubtably in my opinion the best ARF buy in the Market right now, and extremely underpriced for the quality of airplane you get. They probally do come in a tad heavier than the Planes you are currently debating, but you are getting and extremely well built rugged aircraft designed to handle whatever the pilot throws at it. Plus a wing that will not lose its true airfoil during insane aerobatics more than makes up for a couple extra ounces of wing loading. I am not an expert on this Plane, and I just finished building mine, but I do have alot of other "NAME BRAND" ARF and Kit Planes to compare it to, and I do know quality construction when I see it, and never have I been so impressed with an ARF as I am with the VectorFlight. This product is also entirely made in north america, using all namebrand hardware. Its also built and backed by folks who have a genuine interest in modeling, and this is apparant by all the personal emails I have recieved by the manufacturer offering building tips, or just emailing to see how the project is going. I can't say enough about there CS. No better place for a North American to put your money than in a North American Manufacturer who is able to compete with the imports in price, yet provide better quality. Just awesome!

WALKERS210-RCU

My Feedback: (36)

The gap is very minor using the 91 Saito, it is at the bottom and right behind the landing gear so its not really noticeable. Only thing that really bothered me was the belly pan not lineing up precisly enough. I set mine up with dual servos on the elevator halves and used the radio to mix in conjuction with the ailrons. I have only got to fly it a could of times but when you throw the switch to link ailrons with elev halves it will spin unbelivealy. The motor mount did require trimming to allow the linkage to operate freely. The 91 has plenty of power but the 100 would be awsome. I had to add about 2 oz of lead to the nose to bring it into the safe range for the CG. I will get my camera out ( well wait for my NEW Christmas present a new digital camera) and take pics of the cowl mount and show what I mean.