SEAGULL PC 9
 

Has anyone flown this plane? If so what did you think.

RE: SEAGULL PC 9
 

i have flown one belonging to a fellow club member,it was real fast rolling,very sensitive on elevator and a complete nightmare to slow down for landing but very good fun,not a good one for a first low-winger but enjoyable for a slightly more advanced flier.

RE: SEAGULL PC 9
 

I had a PC9 as my second airplane, after flying my Nexstar for a few months. I loved this plane. Unfortunatly, I crashed it on takeoff by stalling it (purely my fault). I bought a Great Planes AT6 to replace it and now I am beating myself for not getting another PC9.

I'm not sure about others experiences, but I thought the plane was quite easy to land. I would say its a shade more advance than the 4*40, but not by much. I did not find the transition from the Nexstar to the PC9 too hard.

Be aware though, a .46 is a GREAT sized engine for it and it will scream. The increased speed may pose some difficulty.

Overall, I wish I would have bought another one instead of the AT6 (which I plan on ordering another PC9). VMAR also makes a PC9 kit for around the same price. But, from what I understand, the Seagull is built with better material.. I have no experience with the VMAR.

If you plan on purchasing the Seagull PC9, it requires atleast a 4ch with 5 servos. Many of the older boxes, which they still use, still say only 4 servos (one for ailerons). The newest PC9 has a servo for each aileron.

The only complaints I have heard about this plane is the fact that the engine is inverted, which I did have some issues too.. Deadsticked a couple times, but got it back to the field safe. I've seen some people mount the engine sideways. Other complaint is engine overheating. The cowling doesnt seem to allow enough airflow. This is easily fixed with a dremel tool and cutting a few heat extracting slots..

http://www.bobbykokinos.com/pc9.jpg

RE: SEAGULL PC 9
 

I have was flying a older hanger 9 cessna up to a few weeks ago,the motor killed and I stalled it trying to make it back to the strip(back to the old trainer). I have looked at the 4* but can't get over just how ugly it is. If they would up date the 4* with a cowl and a better looking canopy I bet they would double there sales!

RE: SEAGULL PC 9
 

Well, there is alot you can do to the 4* to make it look good

Take a look here [link=http://www.renderwurx.com/rc/sig4star/]http://www.renderwurx.com/rc/sig4star/[/link]

But, this may sound bad, but I am too lazy to go through all of that when I can find a plane that will fly and look great out of the box.

RE: SEAGULL PC 9
 

If you can fly, summing it up in two words - buy it!

Here's a flight test review I wrote up on my own experience of Seagull's PC-9 flight envelope shortly after assembling and test flying it. Intended to post it for on RCU for general consumption but never did. You might find it useful.

Seagull's PC-9

Don't own & haven't flown the VMAR, so can't offer a version comparison. Do own, do fly the Seagull. Here is a precis of it starting with the important bit - from the 'driver's' seat.

Start-up - With the supplied fuel tank and conventional 2 stroke .46 class engine installed as suggested, the tank height will be too high and the engine will flood. Best flipped over and started upright. Have an electric starter handy to eliminate excessive swearing!

Ground Handling - Nothing remarkable here.

Take-off - Also unremarkable. Perhaps worthy of mention she's best flown off pattern style without excessive control deflection or 3D antics, at least until after she's accelerated to speed.

Straight and level flight - Neutral stability perhaps sums her up. Clean and with sufficient weight and wing loading for good penetration, once trimmed she'll hold heading without undue upset. Flying at ¾ to full throttle, ailerons are the most notably responsive control surface with little throw being required to effect a rapid roll rate. Elevator is effective, though rudder less so. Definitely follow the manufacturer's recommendation and set these around ½ rates for your initial test flights, except perhaps for your rudder (for ground handling and low speed authority) if it’s a windy day.

General Manoeuvre - At 2.8kg wet (just under 6¼lb), wing loading shows, but it still turns nicely. Rolls are crisp, axial, clean and rapid with the recommended aileron deflection. Rudder works, but is otherwise unimpressive. Expo was made with this model in mind. Dial it in to optimise the versatile flight envelope of this model.

Aerobatics - Installed power plant used for this report was a very low time O.S. MAX 46SF ABC turning a 10x7 APC burning 20% Coolpower and 10% nitro. Provided it is not restricted by either the standard silencer baffle cone or a generic silicon exhaust deflector, a .46 of this class will certainly fly it around quickly enough, but it would benefit from a stronger engine for aerobatic sequences involving sustained vertical manoeuvre. An OS 50SX, Enya CX50 or Magnum 52 Bluehead is highly recommended.

Low speed flight - Exceptionally stable for type. Mushes in power off and approach configuration stalls. No wing dropping tendency. Ailerons and elevator become remarkably unresponsive at this end of the flight envelope when compared with their authority in high speed flight.

Approach and Landing - Even with the 'Dunlops' perpetually dangling, a very clean airframe. If you approach fast, have lots of runway to float over or you've committed yourself to a missed approach if you're wise. This bird takes time to decelerate to approach speed, and will eat up airspace in shallow descent or slowing up in ground effect. So slow her up early. Once you're on, as usual, deceleration is rapid and rudder/nosewheel steering control effective.

That's pretty much it for the flying part. Test bed weighed 2.6kg dry with O.S. MAX .46SF ABC fitted with supplied 873 silencer.

Summary. Would I buy one again? An unequivocal yes. Seagull's PC-9 is the sort of model everyone will want in their hanger inventory. A hoot to fly, yet docile enough that anyone capable of taking off and landing a trainer can manage with a little forethought. And to boot, aesthetically it simply looks magnificent in the air and tops it off by being an absolute value for money bargain.

There's also a very long but good thread discussing this model here. Definitely worth the read.

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_44.../tm.htm#445268

RE: SEAGULL PC 9
 

Thanks for the review! Now all I have to do is get my wife to give me some cash. :D

RE: SEAGULL PC 9
 

Posted my previous (review) prior to reading your comment about stalling your H9 Cessna during a dead stick aproach. No aspersion cast upon either it or your competency, but the following may prove informative in making your decision.

Despite reading opinion to the contrary and admittedly contradicting in degree my own previous statement to effect of someone who can handle take-off's and landings with a trainer competently can fly it, I wouldn't recommend Seagull's PC-9 to your average 'anyone' as their first low wing plane. OTOH if I personally knew them to be disciplined and confidently competent with that trainer, my recommendation would be as suggested in my earlier review.

Despite the claims on Seagull's PC-9 box art, in reality SIG's Four Star 40 OTOH is a better first low wing and/or second model on which to gain competence, confidence and valuable experience. I have flown both.

Why?

Seagull's PC-9 really demands a confidence born of genuine competence to fly it safely. That doesn't mean one has to be an R/C ace by any stretch of the imagination. But it does mean the said confidence has to be substantiated by more than an inflated ego. ie: Skill should balance confidence in equal proportion.

It's vices are that it is slippery at full throttle, even with a previous generation .46, requiring its pilot to think and plan well ahead. If you don't, it'll take you to the scene of the inevitible crash sooner than you want to go there.

It is neutrally stable bordering upon negatively stable around the longitudinal (roll) axis. Even with the CG placed as per recommendation, it is sensitive in pitch as well in cruise flight within its niche envelope. Combine this with the irresistable urge to drive it around at high throttle settings where it excels, and it becomes very fatiguing to fly requiring a high sustained concentration level even with considerable acquired reflex motor skill derived of ability and experience.

Because it is so clean and fast, it takes time to decelerate to approach speed even at flight idle, again requiring anticipation. Whilst it has no low speed bite-yer-arse surprises in the approach config, it requires a different kind of anticipation at low speed due to the relatively unresponsive controls and inertia. Think input - wait 2 seconds..respond..etc. Whilst things are now happening slowly, there's a mental transition to be made. If you approach either too fast or with throttle idle set a fraction high (think one, perhaps two notches on the trannie), the PC-9 will float forever, especially once in ground effect, so you'd better have an unobstructed approach (think flat approach), a long strip or enough fuel to execute several go-arounds until you nail it. Similar ground distance with zero headwind, minus float. The key is to be on speed on approach. If not, go around and try again until you are.

For take-off, it must be flown off the ground or rotated to an initial shallow angle of attack and allowed to accelerate to cruise & manoeuvreing speed. Until it has, general control authority is poor requiring large control (stick) deflection. Early rotation of the nose 3D style attempting a Saturn V climbout will likely result in a (full) power on dynamic stall with the model consequently rolling onto its back with poor aileron/elevator, and virtually no rudder response authority. The trap here for the inexperienced or less than competent is a very real risk of overcontrolling or dumb thumbing in panic to recover orientation, control and height which consequently worsens the situation by raising the nose even further stalling the wing and decelerating the model as they watch it plow uncontrollably into the dirt.

The PC-9 is harder to fly than any of my a pattern or sports pattern models IMO. It is also a lot of fun to fly and I'd never be without one in my hanger, but it is deserving of respect and requires discipline and a modicum of skill if one expects it to survive for any length of time in service. Just peruse the "I had one once before it crashed" stories in that link I supplied you.

Don't want to frighten you off as it's no demon by a long shot, but it's no lapdog either. Think Cheetah, Leopard, Panther and you'd be close.

Though it can be fast with a grunty 2 stroke up front, SIG's Four Star 40 is far more forgiving.

RE: SEAGULL PC 9
 

I would have to agree with SOME of the post right above this.

Lets put it this way. If you are VERY comfortable with your trainer and flying it is second nature, the PC9 "MAY" be OK for you. The most common next step is the 4*40. Me, being the type of person that likes to be different (everyone has a 4*40, and for good reason), decided to go with the PC9.. Now, did I start flying it "balls-out" the first time, no. Actually, my instructor was right there with me, even though I havent needed him for several months.

Is the PC9 a good flying plane? YES, I love it.

Is the PC9 an easy flyer? For the advanced pilot, its not too bad. But for someone coming right off a trainer, it demands ALOT more attention. Like I said, I was lucky to have my instructor there to help to split the duties up a bit.

If you decide to go with the PC9, do yourself a favor and have an instructor there with you, maybe even on the buddy box. Let him/her take it up one time. Atleast they can tell you what to expect. The most helpful thing for me was watching my instructor land the plane a few times. I kind of got an eye for what speed to bring it in at.

Anything is possible with planes. Ive seen people go from trainer to advanced warbird with no problem. I've also seen people go from trainer to a pile of balsa wood within 5 seconds also.

RE: SEAGULL PC 9
 

In all fairness I got the old Cessna I crashed I got from my instructor. He also said it had a nasty stall and had crashed it twice ( thats how I got it so cheap).

RE: SEAGULL PC 9
 

I have heard people say that you can go with 3 blade prop and it will slow it down some............... Is this true?

RE: SEAGULL PC 9
 

From what I understand, from a "Scale" point of view 3 blade props are great. From a performance side, stay with a 3 blade.

I may be wrong though

RE: SEAGULL PC 9
 

Without delving into academic complexities, speed is a function of thrust available vs total drag, and in particular form or parasite drag. Being so aerodynamically clean, Seagull's PC-9 is fast in level flight with a typical sport .46 engine.

The throttle is what will slow you down. Once reduced to flight idle, deceleration is a function of drag. A lower pitch blade will increase drag at flight idle therefore assisting deceleration.

Two blade props are generally more efficient for our .46 in³ sport class engines.

Using the wrong choice of prop or a lesser powered engine will only exacerbate the negative flight characteristics of the model already described above. To change the flight characteristics, you need to change the design. ie: choose a different model.

RE: SEAGULL PC 9
 

Thread is now very old, further threads on this subject exist elsewhere.