a friend has just bought a segull spacewalker for 40-53 size, however in the manual it says
that engine size should be 46-61[X(].

would a 40la be enough????????

let me know your set-up.

it is definitely not enough,a 46 is ok though,i have flown one with an irvine 46 in and it was fine.

It will fly, but even an LA .46 is not enough for the model to be interesting . The Irvine is much more powerfull than the LA.

Volcan, don't listen to the power hogs! People will tell you you'll need a 61 size engine on this thing. I read about one guy who was planning to use a 91! I have a Magnum 40 on my Seagull Spacewalker II and it flies just fine.* I can do most basic aerobatic maneuvers. The issue is really how you like to fly. I don't want an overpowered model with an engine that can drag it all over the sky at lightening speeds. I want to have to FLY the thing. With a 40 size engine you will need finesse (just like a real pilot) to fly well. No yanking it off the deck! You'll have to fly out gently. Similarly, to get a really nice loop you may have to start with a bit of a dive to pick up speed -- just like full-size pilots have to do sometimes.

My main interest is in WWI scale not aerobatics, and since most of the WWI planes were underpowered I prefer to practice the flying skills I'll need for my scale models. So don't be intimidated into using a larger engine -- unless you want a racer!

*Well, technically I HAD a Magnum 40 on my SWII until two days ago when I crashed as a result of going deadstick in a brisk crosswind. BTW, the Japanese use the term "ensto" ("ENgine STOp") for "deadstick."

Note, the Seagull SWII is one sturdy ARF! I've crashed mine at least 8 times previously and this last one was the first to put me out of commission for more than a couple of days (tore out the firewall, ripped off the gear and wing mount but no damage to wing or tail feathers). Also it's a bit heavier than you might think for a plane this size so don't expect it to float like a trainer -- particularly in a deadstick! : )

PS. Glad to see you're back in action after your encounter with a prop.

I should add that I don't really know if the 40LA is the same power as my Magnum 40. And to be perfectly honest, when I rebuild the firewall I'm going to take the opportunity to install a Magnum .52 FS partly for the added power, partly because I love the sound of four strokes, but also because I'm going to be be using the 40 in a new Lucky Stik. Here are a couple of pix:

Oh, and I trashed the well covers and got a pair of larger wheels (3 1/4") to deal with my field's rough ground. Also after gluing them back on several times I also got rid of the fairings/panels on the landing gear which are just there for decoration. I also decided I liked the look of the thing better without the cowl.

S!

Great to hear about that plane. That is the one I'm shooting for after my training period. Does it fly at all like it does in G2? Will I be able to make a nice landing..unlike my ping-pong landings with the G2 version? I did a double -take looking at your picture of yours. Looked like a real plane for a few seconds. I also like your opinion concerning less powered engines and flight characteristics..sounds like fun!

This was also my second plane (I'm not counting the scale Fokker EIII I scratch-built but haven't solo'ed with yet) and I bought it for very specific reasons. First, it had to at least look something like a real plane. Second, it had to be a tail-dragger because virtually all scale models are taildraggers -- particularly the WWI birds I'm interested it. Third, I wanted an open cockpit for nostolgic reasons. Fourth, I wanted something low-wing because I had been told that handling a biplane should be easier for someone with low-wing experience. And finally it had to be an ARF because I'd prefer to save my building energies for my next serious scale project (see photo of my EIII below).

So this narrowed the field down quite a bit. Add to this that it had to be available in Japan (where I currently work) and the Seagull SWII was a no-brainer.

As to how it flies, I had also been practicing with the G2 version for several weeks before my maiden flight. As others have pointed out, technically the G2 version is based on the larger Great Planes version. My first flight was a scary disaster ending in a crash landing neatly removed the landing gear and tore off the wing. I had apparently seriously messed up the balance. After rebalancing with a definite bias toward the nose, the second flight went ok but was still harder than in RealFlight. Basically the G2 version is much MUCH slower than the real deal. I found myself chewing up my small field even with the 40-size engine. It also wanted to land a speed much above those of my RCM Trainer -- and much faster than in RealFlight.

This is a heavy plane and doesn't float the way the one in G2 does. In a deadstick it wants to come down and come down NOW. It's also a little squirely on take-off (apparently a bit more than some other popular "second-plane" taildraggers. But it's like this in RealFlight too. BTW, I'd suggest you practice on G2 with a crosswind of at least 5mph with gusts up to 10mph. Practice with the crosswind coming from both directions. This is what I've been doing and it's saved my bacon several times. I've also set up both a low power and high power version in G2. I picked a 40 size engine for the low-power one and selected a 91 FS in the high power one. Flying the fast one helps me adjust to the faster speed of the real model.

In many ways it handles like a tame warbird (no unpleasant stall characteristics) and I would consider it a perfect advanced trainer for anyone planning to get into WWII fighters. It's probably also good training for those interested in WWI scale. I started out with the throws all set as per the (somewhat wonky) manual (high and low settings). I started out (after my initial fiasco) on low settings, but almost immediately I noticed that I was forever "bottoming out" on the elevator so I switched that over to high rates. After I'm a little more comfortable with the SWII I'll probably be switching the ailerons to high rates as well.

With the 40 I have to dive a bit to get a nice round loop but it handles beautifully in stall turns and a whole bunch of other moves I don't know the name for. I haven't gotten "wild" with it yet so can't say how aerobatic it is. Certainly enough for my skill level.

Construction-wise this is one tough -- and beautifully built -- bird. The quality of the ARF components puts my shabby RCM Trainer ARF to shame. All in all, I've crashed this plane 8 times. On each of the first 7 the damage was minimal. I even "landed" it in a stand of 40 foot tall bamboo and the only damage was a broken off elevator half which was easily reattached with epoxy. The last crash (just the other day) was a little worse. On a deadstick in a crosswind I stalled out on a turn and dropped in from about 15 feet up. This tore out the firewall, the landing gear, and the wing mount. But still no damage to the wing or most of the fuse. I'm impressed! I wouldn't hesitate recommending this ARF to anyone who has an interest in scale planes.

Also I did "spice it up a bit" by leaving off the cowl, adding some decorative (cheapo) aluminum tape trim to the front of the fuse, the wings, and edges of the plastic windscreens. Other than that it's totally stock.

Abu -- the 40 LA is notably less powerfull than your Magnum -- it can barely push water downhill.

I reviewed the Seagull Spacewalker with an Evolution 45 and it was MORE than enough power.

I think the 40 la will be fine.

I would spend another 8 bucks and get the 46LA, it's the same engine as the .40 with a slightly bigger bore that gives it 20% more power at the same weight. It will perform closer to the Magnum mentioned and its 3.5oz lighter.

If you need to ask the question, then it's an indication that it probably will be for you - or your friend if he's asking the same question.

Seagull's Spacewalker will fly on a 40LA no problem at all, but it won't be a "Wild Thang!". Its generous airfoil and wing area carry the weight easily, so that the only difference between fitting an 40LA and highly timed twin ballraced 46 such as an AX will be (i) the speed it flys at, and (ii) how much excess power is available for vertical performance. If you've already got an LA, go ahead and buy the Spacewalker with confidence. It'll fly it. You can fit that 46 later when you want more vertical and/or speed. If you haven't got the 40LA, I'd recommend you buy that twin ballraced 46 for it. Properly run in, set up and tuned right, a 46AX or similar provides abundant grunt for this model. It would be an understatement to say that a .61 would be overkill in this airframe.

You can find an accurate review of the model here.
http://www.rcuniverse.com/magazine/a...article_id=379
I know, I know. It's the Spacewalker II, but they are essentially identical. The changes are either cosmetic or structural, neither of which effect performance.

You'll really enjoy this model. Seagull are producing some tremendous sport models at killer pricing these days.

OK, I have the Spacewalker II and I have a few comments. I'm running a OS 52 Surpass on it (which is probably comparable power wise to a good 40). While I have no doubt that the SW will fly on a 40LA, You won't have any excess power. The wing is fairly blunt and as Abufletcher said, my opinion is this a high drag model for its design. It's also a little weighty.

I would caution you against the 40LA for this plane and would advise a 46. If budget is the issue, then the 46LA would be ok, but Super Tigre G45 or G51, TT 46, or Magnum 46XL would also be good choices. I just think that draggy model + newer pilot + lack of emergency power = trouble. A good 40 would probably be ok, but the LA is very tame for its displacement. But if you are going to buy a motor, I would say a 46 has more long term potential and you can always throttle back.

Duke

I think I'd go along with "The Duke" on this. Nothing wrong with a little extra power. I'd say a 46 or a 52FS would be perfect for this model -- but it's flyable with a 40LA. It you ALREAY HAVE the 40LA go ahead and use it. If you are THINKING ABOUT BUYING model to use in this model, go for the slightly more powerful (and only slightly more expensive) larger engines.

BTW, I also agree that the SWII is a "draggy" design and to be perfectly honest that's part of why I chose it. I wanted a second-plane that would help me learn to fly the tremendously draggy WWI aircraft I like so much. My Fokker EIII has 16 rigging wires, a big open radial engine in a flat-faced cowl, a complex non-retracting undercarriage, a top pylon, exposed machine gun, and open cockpit with exposed pilot -- you can hardly get more drag than this! It most definitely does NOT glide well. BTW, my decision to leave off the cowl on my Spacewalker was at least partly motived by the wish to INCREASE the drag to better replicate the flying challenge of the many exposed engine WWI types.

So the SWII is an excellent model for certain purposes. I love the very realistic way if moves through the air. It looks real -- not like some models can flit around and perform moves that seem very unnatural. If this is what you want then you'll love your Spacewalker!

The Spacewalker II is nothing like the Great Planes version. It is definitely not a floater. I have an OS 46AX powering mine and it is quite adequate. I suggest 2 things to slow this plane up for landings. One is a larger diameter, low pitch prop. I was using an 11x6 and it zoomed by on approach. Now I'm using a 12x4 APC and it slows it down quite a bit. Second, set up flapperons. This will allow the plane to float in slower for a nice easy landing. Just my 2 cents.

Steve, I think I'll take your advice and get the larger prop! I prefer to stay away from the flaperon option because it's not an authentic option on WWI aircraft. But for someone else, it sounds interesting.

i just got feedback from my friend,
after reading this post, he bought a .43 engine for it,
but...
today on its madien, somehow (i wasnt there) the prop came off
and it crashed in a tree!

Doesn't much matter what engine you put in, if you don't bother to tighten the prop nut! Oh, well. Hope it's repairable and hope your friend learned a valuable lesson.

omg!
my mate just rang me, he few it once again,
this time the prop stayed on, but the CARB fell off!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
when he checked it out ALL SCREWS WERE LOOSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My first plane-trainer was a spad debonair .The total weight including engine and all was 10 lbs even. The 40 la couldnt take it off the ground untill i removed the buffle in mufler.Then after while as engine broke in and freed up a little more it started flying the plane.I could do loops,rolls(they were awfully slow) and stall turns but just. Then after while engine started loading up on a low side ,probably because the vent hole partially cloged up with grass and trash.I drilled it out a litle larger and it started working like a clock again.Anyhow,depends on what you like.You like take off vertical-40 la is not an option..You like to fly slow,more like a glider then you'll be ok.HOpe it helps.
Mitty

ive seen one fly with a LA 40 &it really is NOT enough power to safely do manuevers. you'll tire of it quickly as it could barely get out of its own way.

I have a evo 46 in mine. Seems to me like just about the perfect amount of power.

I am sure a lot less such as the 40 la would keep it in the air, but what fun would it be constantly worrying about trying to keep air speed so it won't crash?

Just my 2 cents worth.



Wings

i started off with a laser 70 in mine and it flew and sounded real nice, ive now got a saito 100 in it and its a real hoot.
vertical take offs, flat spins and realy big loooooops.

I just can't resist putting in my two cents worth. I bought one as a taildragger trainer, also. I was planning on a warbird and wanted to have some experience before I tried flying it.
The first, and lasting impression is that it's a very nicely made plane, very sturdy and unfortunately on the heavy side. I used an AX 46 on mine. Was a really nice looking plane.
I didn't have a lot of experience (well, none at all) flying taildraggers when I tried to fly it. I actually had one of our most experienced guys maiden it for me, and he had a lot of trouble getting it to go straight down the runway. Whether it was because it was marginally overpowered or just the airplane itself, that little bird gave him (and me) more heartburn trying to get it to go straight. I'm not saying it can't be done, it can, but for a first taildragger it might be a bit much. On the plus side, if you can take it off straight, you'll be ready to get anything off straight!
IMHO, for a taildragger trainer, I would look elsewhere. I would want something overpowered, with better ground handling characteristics. Say a 40 sized stik. Or even a H9 Twist with lots of expo.... something that won't frustrate you as much as my SWII frustrated me.....


Andy

I found it to be much tamer than a 4*.

Well people can say what they want but power can get you out of trouble. I have a Saito 72 with a perry pump on mine and use a 13x5 zinger pro will hover at 1/2 throttle