Seagull Classic Ugly Stik 71"
 

Hi There, I'm interested in hearing from anybody that has this model and what they have set it up with.

Wow, over 60 views and not one person has this model.
Standby and I'll let you all know when I have one ����

I will be watching.....

Get you a Great Planes Giant Stik, put a DLE 30 on it and have fun...

Keep you posted.

Hay,
Do yourself one better...get the Hanger 9's new 30cc Ultra Stick...its not as heavy as the 30cc Tower Big Stick and very will built too. I have had both...and I just got my big Ultra Stick...great ARF.
Soft Landings Always,
Bobby of Maui

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/atta...mentid=2207911

I do love these large "Ultra Sticks" that will be something most definately down the track.
I've just ordered myself the Seagull Ugly Stick as it was in my budget for the complete build thanks Bob

Bump. Does anyone have experience with this ARF?

Thanks,
Don.

Ok, I went ahead and got one from Gator RC once they came back in stock. I completed the assembly a couple of days ago and although I have yet to fly it, here are some initial thoughts and pics in case it helps someone out there make a decision:

Overall quality is somewhere between fair and good. The covering was applied decently with exception of trim, which was kinda sloppy. See pics.

Hardware quality ranges between ygtbkm trash and awesome. Cheap metric phillips screws/blind nuts for engine mounting were replaced by standard hex bolts and blind nuts. The landing gear legs are BEEFY and right off the larger Great Planes Giant Ugly Stick, albeit with slightly different bends. Hold those two sets of gear together and you’ll see the obvious relationship. The axles are more beefy than anything I’ve seen elsewhere. The wheels are so-so. Control rods and clevises are very fine threaded, metric, and more than up to the job.

Instructions are vague enough in a couple of places that they’d give a first-time builder fits, but more than adequate for most.

Most pics I’ve seen show either a painted or covered (?) firewall. Mine however was sealed but unpainted. The raw wood look on the firewall was not for me, and neither were the unpainted landing gear. I fly electric, so a few minutes with a rattle can solved both issues and the whole appearance is much better now IMO.

The above minor points aside, I have four real issues with this ARF.

1) It is significantly heavier than the quoted 7.7 lbs. The airframe before engine, mounts, or Rx battery came in at 6 lbs even in tail wheel configuration, leaving only 1.7 lbs available for nose gear, engine, prop, fuel tank, fuel, and rx battery if one is banking on making advertised spec. Being electric, mine is understandably even heavier than a gasser would be and comes in at 9.6 lbs all up, including the 6S 5.2A battery. I am not flying a separate rx battery, choosing instead to use the ESC’s BEC and a separate BEC off of the motor’s battery for redundancy. There’s a ton of wing area though, so the overall performance should be fine with my EFL Power 60 pulling 1250-1800W, depending on the prop. Note that I saved considerable weight by IGNORING the instructions (the weight could have easily ballooned to approx 11 lbs) as follows…

2) The kit includes and instructions call for use of 2.5” stand-offs for electric installations. This is absolutely ygtbkm territory as the model is already very nose heavy in electric configuration (and I strongly suspect would be in gasser mode as well). Even after discarding the standoffs and mounting my motor to a (modified) firewall, the starting point for location of my 5.2A 6S battery is several inches back from the firewall, placing the aft end of the battery well behind the “fuel compartment” and aft of the leading edge of the wing. If I’d installed the motor and ESC 2.5” forward, there’s no doubt that I would have been forced to increase the overall weight further by placing lead in the tail to achieve anything close to a reasonable CG.

3) While the front hatch is well done and convenient for the electric option, there are no provisions for battery mounting. None. Bring your own Velcro straps and/or other battery hold-down methodologies, especially for the aft end of the battery since it’s inconveniently out of sight behind the rear battery (fuel tank) compartment bulkhead. I will post later pics showing my final battery location and mounting method after flight testing.

4) There’s no built-in firewall thrust offsets for either pitch or yaw, as is so common elsewhere. The firewall is strictly squared off with the longitudinal axis. Plan then on lots of elevator and rudder inputs with power changes unless you offset the thrust line on your own. I got around this by making my own accommodations to easily ‘tune’ the thrust line in both pitch and yaw, via a variable firewall in front of the stock firewall. More on this later after flight testing.

The Hangar-9 Ultra in 60 size is significantly smaller, undoubtedly lighter, and may be a better overall choice as some have suggested above. The hangup for me there is entirely subjective, as I personally just can’t stand the looks of the H9 variant.

Wish me luck during maiden and tuning. I will report back here after that with final thoughts on the thrust line and battery mounting/CG etc.


https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...afd8fdc10.jpeg
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...d797c23a8.jpeg
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...713c4e5ea.jpeg
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...6e9d780e5.jpeg

There were three other minor issues which I forgot to include in the above review:

1) The rudder control rod exit is not quite in the correct place and needed to be elongated aft to keep the rod from binding.
2) The tail wheel bracket narrows toward the front, which results in having to replace the forward most of the two supplied mounting screws with a smaller one, as the head on the original is simply too large. (See pic)
3) The tail wheel requires two collars to remain centered on the axle and prevent it from contacting/binding on the spring portion of the wire. The kit only supplied one so I had to dig a recycled one out of the drawer. (See pic)
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...ba5bfc1de.jpeg

FLIGHT TEST UPDATE:

The good:
It’s on rails, just like a Stik should be. Very light wing loading, even though well over the mfr’s fantasy advertised weight. The wing was apparently built with laser precision, as stalls are dead-on straight forward with absolutely zero wing drop. Flight times are a respectable 5+ minutes with a 6S-5200 juicing the E-flite Power 60-470, even when aggressively flown. The lack of down-thrust at the firewall proved to be of zero consequence, as there’s no pitching moment at all with throttle changes.

The bad:
The nose is definitely, pointlessly too long, especially for an electric setup. If flying electric, one should absolutely disregard the included standoffs and mount the motor directly to the firewall, with the ESC mounted to the underside of the battery/fuel compartment. In this configuration I wound up cutting open the aft end of the fuse just forward of the horizontal stab to add 2 oz of lead. If built to spec with the standoffs this thing would have needed an additional ounce of lead and looked really ridiculous to boot. The lack of right-thrust at the firewall was overcome in my case by leaving the motor square to the longitudinal axis but mounting it offset laterally to the left an inch or so to compensate for corkscrew effect. The stock rudder pushrod turned out to be under sized for the job, as it bows quite a bit during right rudder (push vs pull) application. See the pic for illustration of the rod which is now bowed even when at rest.

Conclusion: While I have modified mine enough to make it a nice flying keeper, my opinion is that unless one simply must have a classic Stick scheme (like me), then buy the Hanger 9 stick. I’ve never owned the Hangar 9 and really don’t like the color scheme, but the Seagull variant just has too many issues IMO. If Seagull can’t get a simple Stik right then I’m almost certainly not going to buy anything from them which is more expensive, elaborate, and with more features for them to fail at designing or developing correctly. Darn shame there, as I would have liked to try out their Skyraider.


https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...ff133ad91.jpeg

These three pics show
1) the lateral motor offset I used on the modified firewall and just how far aft the 6S-5200 went to achieve a reasonable CG before adding weight in the tail.
2) engineering added to keep the aft end of the battery from flopping around when this far aft and only (barely held by one strap. Even this far aft the CG was a bit too far forward, requiring up elevator trim.
3) the final and more reasonable battery location after adding the tail weight.

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...c72cc0bbf.jpeg
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...3aaf277df.jpeg
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...7330cfe61.jpeg

Hi guy's,

New to the forum. Just about completing the build of the Classic Ugly Stick 71". The manual shows CG at 110mm from leading edge but Geoff Barbers build manual
indicated 100mm. Which is correct? RCU didn't allow me to add URL to Geoff's build manual. :o(
Some help will be appreciated.
Also, I am unable to log in to the above URL to leave a comment. Gets directed to RCU only.
Cheers
Mo

Welcome aboard. I no longer have the blue Stik above, as I gave it to my father. However, I can assure you that the CG here is, while important, less critical than many other models. Just measure the chord (wing front to back), multiply that number by .25 and start there for a CG. Depending on your personal preferences/flying style, you might eventually work your way back to 33% form that initial 25% figure. The nose on the Seagull model of stik it way too long, so ignore those stupid standoffs and mount the motor directly to the firewall if able. Or at least consider doing so, depending on whatever you’re using for power.

Best wishes,
Don

Thank you for your welcome and quick response Don.

Yes, we generally go by the 25-33% thumb rule erring on the side of 25% (nose slightly heavy) when CG is unknown and/or not given by the manufacturer. Presume that's what you did. Obviously. Why did you not go by the given CG?

Whilst the thumb rule .could be utilized, I was wondering why that great Geoff Barber's build guide mentioned 100mm whereas the Mfr manual says 110mm? I am aware that there is a +/- 10mm or so either way and I do agree that these ugly sticks are quite forgiving. I had a super stick (1550mm w/span) and it got done in, unfortunately. Sad. I really loved that plane thrashing it around. That's what did it in, sadly.

Any hew, as we say here down yonder, I will go by your suggestion. Thanks again Don.
Cheers
Mo

Hi Mo,
To answer your question: I have seen too many mfr manuals be wrong, possibly due to translation into chinglish, a desire to be conservative for less capable assemblers, fliers etc…I have no idea who Mr Barber is nor have I seen his guide, so anyone’s guess as to why his number was different or even if it’s correct.

Although it flew straight enough, the Seagull stik was a great disappointment for me in every aspect other than overall scheme and I gave it away. Conversely IMO, the Hangar 9 example (which I had initially resisted but now own is superior in every aspect other than the scheme. I won’t ever own another Seagull of any type, because 1) the two ARFs Ive gotten from them were clearly inferior, 2) most of those owned by my club mates have been inferior, and 3) paying a bit more for better engineering is worth the trade for less of my time re-engineering something.

Seagull is not alone in this regard. I will also not own another Phoenix or any TopRC. There seems to be a race for the bottom…(rant over)

My own misgivings aside, I am not asking anyone to agree with me and it’s my sincere hope that your experience is different and you conclude that my opinions above are hogwash! :-)

Hi There Don,

No my friend. Nothing said in good faith is hogwash..

I can confess that I too thought that I will not buy another Seagull after acquiring an Edge-540 two years ago. Yes, badly engineered indeed and very flimsy. I too was eying the Hangar 9 with flaps and all but having inspected another Seagull ugly stick of current build, it appeared to be quite well made compared to the Edge-540 in every respect. Hence, my decision to get one. Of course, another reason was that I had an offer from a retailer that I simply couldn't refuse. So, I saved 50% off the cost of a Hangar 9. Time will tell. Building it was quite easy. All components fitting in quite well into pre engineered grooves/slots. Other aspects that impressed me were easy access to the fuel tank and 'all' hardware down to the push rod stoppers, engine mount, spinner etc were all included in addition to Electric/Gas, Tricycle or Tail dragger options. I didn't have to use any of my hardware. Brilliant. All this of course prior to experiencing it's flight behavior.

Earlier, I tried to add Geoff Barber's build manual but RCU wouldn't allow me until I have ten posts. He's a RC author and blogger from this forum.

Presumably, you are aware that Hangar 9, Horizon Hobby are also made in the Seagull factory, as I understand. Of course, each undoubtedly have their specification.

I don't expect the CG is gonna be a major. Fingers crossed.

Cheers
Mo

Yes, I’d heard that the two brands are made in same factory. Dunno if that’s true or urban myth. What I can say after assembling them back to back is that there’s just no comparison in design/build/covering quality between the two sticks. Still, at the right price you may have gotten a real winner there. Double check your empennage pushrod stiffness…mine on the Seagull were pretty flimsy. The one aspect of the Seagull that I thought outshone the H9 was, of all things, the front hatch. The H9 uses a ridiculous screw vs magnet. The single best thing on the Seagull unit IMO and as mentioned above was the main gear. Same gauge as my Giant Stik, and pleasant overkill for the smaller airplane.

Thanks for the tip. They are within the PR guide tubes and appears OK but Will check stiffness in operation. Cheers.

I have built and have been flying the Seagul Ugly Stick now for almost six months. I had several major issues with the model, but once corrected, turned out ok. I was able to get my model early and cost me under $250.00 delivered. It now sells for about $350.00 + delivery. To be honest if I lose this model for any reason, I will not buy another, but I will buy the Horizon 30cc gas Ugly Stick. Better quality and better built. I love Ugly Sticks and I have been flying them since Larry Lenard sold the Little Stick kit back in the early 70's. I've built one, two, three and four engined Ugly Sticks...from 24" wing span to 106". I know Ugly Sticks.

I had the top hatch fall apart soon after flying the model, and ended up installing hard wood blocks and using servo screws to attach it. The attach method is weak and wood used to lock it down not only weak, but will break with little use. Enforce it in the beginning and save yourself headaches later on.

Second...the forward wing hold down system was so weak it broke on a landing in a cross wind and the right wing tip hit the ground on a ground loop. It was not a crash...and the wing tip just touched the ground and did no damage to the wing. The forward wing hold down ply was so light and weak, it broke free ! I had to reinforce the forward wing attachment with quality 1/4" aircraft quality ply and I highly recommend you do this to your model, before you fly this model for the first time.

On a landing...not a hard landing-but a normal landing, my landing gear ripped clear of the fuse. I found very little glue to mount the landing gear block, and the way it is attached was a really poor design. The bottom balsa on the fuse was so soft for me, I had to reinforce it ( a really poor choice of material). I replaced the bottom fuse balsa with 3/32" quality aircraft ply from the fire wall, aft to the aft bulkhead (where the trailing of the wing sets up against). I also put in a doubler to where the landing gear screws mount the landing gear 6" long, over the 3/32" ply I placed first on the bottom. So far...with over 70 flights in all winds, I have had no more issues with the landing gear. If you do not reinforce the landing gear attachment...you will lose your landing gear and damage the bottom of your fuse.

I beefed up the fire wall and fly my model with a DLE 20cc. I installed the landing gear from the Horizon 30cc gear (from the Horizon 30cc Ugly Stick)-I needed the clearance for a 17x6 Xore prop and installed 4-1/2" DuBro balloon tires. I also installed a heavy duty tail wheel assembly.

I now have over 70 flights on this model and with my up grades it flys great. It will come out a bit more heavy then posted, but it flies great.

Unless you willing to upgrade this model and do the mods I have mentioned...I would not recommend this model. If you search the internet on this model...you will see many folks have had these issues. With my up grades it turned into a good flying model and the airframe is easily able to handle the DLE 20cc gas engine. I mounted my elevator and rudder servo aft near the tail, and the model I received had servo cut outs already there. All you need to do is cut out the covering and mount your servo's.

I hope this helps folks with their models.

Soft Landings Always,
Bob Paris

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...fc67502f4.jpeg
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...64310f120.jpeg
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...99dc8627a.jpeg
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...abb06b2c6.jpeg
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...3964bd46c.jpeg

Hi Bob, while I derive absolutely no joy from your trials in putting lipstick on the pig, I do take a small measure of comfort in the validation of my impressions. All of the “same factory as H9” stuff that some folks take comfort in when choosing Seagull is just so much wishful thinking IMO. My thought was to give Seagull a chance on a model that’s been around for so long that its nearly impossible to screw up, but when I realized that Seagull couldn’t even get a stik right I knew I’d never buy the brand again. I am personally 0-2 with the brand and none of the others I’ve seen through other club members have been any better.

Hay Highhorse,
This was my first Seagull model and I am not to impressed with it. It states 10 ~ 15cc gas, but it needs a 20cc to have the power to fly like I like. The choice of balsa wood and light ply was not good and this will be my first and last model I purchase from Seagull. The company that sold it to me were good folks...it's sad that it was not produced with better materials. I love Sig kits and ARF's...solidly built and all fly well. It's kind of hard to mess up an Ugly Stick...but Seagull managed to do it. Sad...for Seagull makes nice models. I got this one for about $250.00 delivered, so it was not to expensive. I have a Midwest Stick Biplane and its going on the building bench next. What kind of blew me away is that the kit from Seagull cost over $350.00 now.

My model came out to weigh in at 10 lbs. 7 oz. I used a DuBro aluminum vibra mount for my engine. I had to beat the muffler into submission to get it to fit the engine mount, but came out ok. With a 16oz. fuel tank...I can make three ten minute flights and still have fuel left in the tank. I mounted my servo's aft (HD1501BBMG) for balance...and it turned out I needed no lead to properly balance my model.

If you look at my wing, you will see a brace between my hold down screws for the wing. I recommend this too, for a more secure wing hold down. Horizon has one on their 30cc Ugly Stick and copied this onto this model.
Soft Landings Always,
Bob Paris

I am unsure if my post was properly submitted. New here and funny things appear to happen...;O(
trying to remove/delete.. but dunno how...;o(

Just completed the build with some good advice from Highhorse. Yesterday was the maiden at half throttle. This was due to an issue with the engine, NGH 17cc - Gas. it did fly quite well although we couldn't put it through the usual 'tests' once the engine issues were resolved, it did the maneuvers well. However, mid way through the test regime at full throttle disaster struck. Pieces flew around wildly. It appeared that the whole darn contraption was disintegrating in mid air.. Thank the good lord it was only the fuel hatch coming loose as as happened to Bob. I read his post one day too late. However, it also damaged the wing covering in it's exit. Now I am looking for the correct color of covering. Hard to get over here.

I will employ all of the beefing up that Bob had carried out.

I also replaced the 'cross' from the underside of the wing with a more identifiable scheme. Recommended. Why Sea Gull had both sides the same, I have no idea. Common sense stuff.

Cheers/Mo

Great quote indeed...