Seagull Ultimate .90

[MadMonkey572]

So... What do you guys think?

http://www.horizonhobby.com/Products/Default.aspx?ProdID=SEA5050

Looks like a fun alternative to the Goldberg Ultimate... and a lot cheaper! As in $130 cheaper!

Looks like it'll weigh in at a pound or so more than the Goldberg though. Whatcha think, Saito 1.25? :)

I may have to pick one of these up when they come out later this month.

[WCB]

I've been eyeing that one too. The GB Ultimate is a good plane but the design is outdated.
The 125 would be ok for sport flying on the Seagull Ultimate. If you're looking for serious 3D you may need a 150.

[youngun]

.... and for any SUPER serious 3D at least a DA 200 ... at least. :rolleyes:

Then for SUPER DUPER serious 3D ... a V8 engine ... with an 8 foot 2x4 prop.

Cheesh ... I wish those that make the planes would get real on these engine recommendations. A .91 to a 1.25 ???? GET REAL!!! Everybody and anybody knows those size engines would NEVER get that plane off the ground. Right? We know better don't we guys? :cool:















of course I'm kidding. ;)

[OremFlyGuy]

That's a sweet plane - I think I'll have to get one of those. I'll definitely be putting an OS 120ax 2s or a Saito 150 4s in it though (I'm at altitude, 4800ft., and most plane manufacturer recommendations don't work well here).

[youngun]

I bet that 120 2s would REALLY haul that plane!

I just wish that they had made it better looking. :(

That color combination is UUuuugly. Almost as bad as Goldgergs. :p

Red , White and Blue would have been great considering the war and all. Or maybe just Red and white, if they won't do the stand up patriotic thing. But, yeller and blu and a wittle bit of red? That makes the eyes hurt just thinking about it. :D A recover job would be a must! :)

What da y'all think about those colors they made it?

[MadMonkey572]

What da y'all think about those colors they made it?

I think it looks fine myself, I suck at covering though so everything looks good to me :D

[Rabbit Leader]

Got one of these monsters.

The colours look much better in real life than they do in any picture. A real eyecatcher in sunlight with a polished alu spinner and chrome "embelishments" on it.

It was designed around a 2s 90. Mine has an OS max 90FX screwed to it and needed no extra weight to balance it. I can't remember the weight but it worked out somewhat lighter than it said on the box. Power is ample. It can be coaxed into any 3D manouver without exceeding 75% throttle. At WOT it has to be seen to be believed. By adjusting the G/G fore & aft it can be changed from a slow flying 3D freestyler to a ballisic pattern ship taking up an obscene amount of sky.

The engine recommendation was lost in translation. It should read 0.91 2st OR 120 4 st. Both engines would produce a "similar" performance

[youngun]

Got one of these monsters.

The colours look much better in real life than they do in any picture. A real eyecatcher in sunlight with a polished alu spinner and chrome "embelishments" on it.

It was designed around a 2s 90. Mine has an OS max 90FX screwed to it and needed no extra weight to balance it. I can't remember the weight but it worked out somewhat lighter than it said on the box. Power is ample. It can be coaxed into any 3D manouver without exceeding 75% throttle. At WOT it has to be seen to be believed. By adjusting the G/G fore & aft it can be changed from a slow flying 3D freestyler to a ballisic pattern ship taking up an obscene amount of sky.

The engine recommendation was lost in translation. It should read 0.91 2st OR 120 4 st. Both engines would produce a "similar" performance



That is some very interesting info! :)

Questions:
Does it come with the spinner? If not, what size does it need?
Also what prop are you using?

Does anyone know how an OS 90fx compares to an original Webra 91 as far as power is concerned?

Are the trim colors stuck down well or do they need to be ironed down? I'm really wondering if the trim colors could be peeled off so that I could just start with a yellow base.

[MadMonkey572]

I can't remember the weight but it worked out somewhat lighter than it said on the box.

When you find out, can you let us know? I'm really interested in picking one up..

So a 91FX is enough for hovering? Does it have enough grunt to pull out of the hovers okay? I prefer 4-stroke for 3D planes though so I don't know which way I'll go...

[mtwister]

at 10 pounds, a .91 fx will struggle to keep that plane flying level, and wont even think of hovering, even with a 15x4W prop on it. At 10 pounds, this is a 1.20 to 1.60 2 stroke 3D power plane.

[MadMonkey572]

at 10 pounds, a .91 fx will struggle to keep that plane flying level, and wont even think of hovering, even with a 15x4W prop on it. At 10 pounds, this is a 1.20 to 1.60 2 stroke 3D power plane.

So you're calling Rabbit Leader a liar? :p

[mtwister]

So you're calling Rabbit Leader a liar? :p


I'm not calling anyone a liar, but no .90 size 2 stroke is going to perform TRUE 3D, not what alot of people are calling 3D power on a 10 pound plane. The OS 1.60 is in it's peak 3D power range when kept under 12.5 pounds. Now, do you honestly think a .90 will pull a plane only 2 pounds lighter into 3D? No, it's not going to happen. I also am hesitant of believing this story since OS doesn't make a .90 FX anyways.

[MadMonkey572]

I'm not calling anyone a liar, but no .90 size 2 stroke is going to perform TRUE 3D, not what alot of people are calling 3D power on a 10 pound plane. The OS 1.60 is in it's peak 3D power range when kept under 12.5 pounds. Now, do you honestly think a .90 will pull a plane only 2 pounds lighter into 3D? No, it's not going to happen. I also am hesitant of believing this story since OS doesn't make a .90 FX anyways.


I figure he accidentally hit .90 instead of .91...

He did say that the plane came out lighter than was advertised. I have a buddy with a Goldberg Ultimate who has excellent vertical performance with just a Thunder Tiger .61 and it's only a couple of pounds lighter than the advertised weight of the Seagull.

Guess we'll have to buy them to find out for sure :D

[mtwister]

I figure he accidentally hit .90 instead of .91...

He did say that the plane came out lighter than was advertised. I have a buddy with a Goldberg Ultimate who has excellent vertical performance with just a Thunder Tiger .61 and it's only a couple of pounds lighter than the advertised weight of the Seagull.

Guess we'll have to buy them to find out for sure :D


I have a .91 FX on a 7 pound U Can Do, and it is just about at it's limit, and that is with a 15x4W prop. Anything more, and will not be 3D power. With the specs on this plane, it needs a YS 1.40 or an OS 1.60fx for true 3D.

[youngun]

at 10 pounds, a .91 fx will struggle to keep that plane flying level,.............

I can't say one way or the other about that ...... yet.
But I will probably find out.

What I can say is this;
When I started into RC there was a kit made by Sig mfg called a Kadet.
It was probably the forerunner of all the Kadets they have now.

It was rated for a .19 to a .30~.35 . I can't remember now but the top end was smaller than a 40 (opps should be .40, don't want anyone saying they didn't have "40s" back then ;) )

The man that owned an ran the hobby shop sold me the Sig Kadet and a supertigre 23 to fly it with.

Before I got the plane built, I found the local club and a couple of the guys said to take the .23 back and get a .40. This was the beginning of the time they started putting .40s in them. They didn't think the .23 would be enough for the plane. Keep in mind that Sig had a .19 as the low end of their recommendations.

So I went back to the hobby shop and explained what I had been told.

The guy that ran the shop took the time to explain how a plane flew and asked me to PLEASE learn to fly first using the .23 and then if I still wanted that .40 instead of the .23, he would do it.

Well, I took his advice and learned to fly. I think that many today have never truely learned this. And I have never regretted doing it that way.

Yes, I did end up putting a .40 in it. But that was much later after taking the time to learn to fly. And I didn't take the little .23 back to him for the swap he offered. After all, He had been right. I bought the .40 and put the .23 in something else.

That Kadet weighed 5.5 lbs and flew with a .23.

I'm assuming that a .90~.91 is more than twice as powerful as that little .23 was. And it flew a 5.5 pound aircraft. That .23 also had the old still porting.

So ..... would you please tell me why that with a 10lb airplane "a .91 fx will struggle to keep that plane flying level"???? Is it a weak engine for it's size??


By-The-Way .... Doesn't have anything to do with powering the plane but it turned out that the hobby shop guy was a WW2 vet, had flown in a Dauntless dive bomber in the pacific. So he did know how to fly and proved it on occasion. I wish he and those like him were still around. He was good people.

[MadMonkey572]

Least power I have in a plane is an Enya .46 4-stroke in a 6 pound Kyosho Cessna 188. Flies it pretty well actually...

Some people are so used to overpowering their planes that they can't fathom putting the recommended engine in them...

[mtwister]

No, the .91 is not weak for it's size, but you are comparing apples to oranges. Wing loading is the factor here. A high wing trainer is going to generate lift starting at low speeds, so that's why a less powerful engine can fly them. Aerobats require you to generate speed over the wings to gain lift, so you need the power to do that. Now, let's add a bipe to this, with a huge drag factor, and weight, now you are asking that engine to work even harder. Try it, you may like how scale it will fly with the engine, but I can guaruntee you if you are over 7 pounds it will not be a true 3D machine. Not just because of engine size, but because of the wing area. At that weight the plane just wont fly well with that size wing area.


I can't say one way or the other about that ...... yet.
But I will probably find out.

What I can say is this;
When I started into RC there was a kit made by Sig mfg called a Kadet.
It was probably the forerunner of all the Kadets they have now.

It was rated for a .19 to a .30~.35 . I can't remember now but the top end was smaller than a 40 (opps should be .40, don't want anyone saying they didn't have "40s" back then ;) )

The man that owned an ran the hobby shop sold me the Sig Kadet and a supertigre 23 to fly it with.

Before I got the plane built, I found the local club and a couple of the guys said to take the .23 back and get a .40. This was the beginning of the time they started putting .40s in them. They didn't think the .23 would be enough for the plane. Keep in mind that Sig had a .19 as the low end of their recommendations.

So I went back to the hobby shop and explained what I had been told.

The guy that ran the shop took the time to explain how a plane flew and asked me to PLEASE learn to fly first using the .23 and then if I still wanted that .40 instead of the .23, he would do it.

Well, I took his advice and learned to fly. I think that many today have never truely learned this. And I have never regretted doing it that way.

Yes, I did end up putting a .40 in it. But that was much later after taking the time to learn to fly. And I didn't take the little .23 back to him for the swap he offered. After all, He had been right. I bought the .40 and put the .23 in something else.

That Kadet weighed 5.5 lbs and flew with a .23.

I'm assuming that a .90~.91 is more than twice as powerful as that little .23 was. And it flew a 5.5 pound aircraft. That .23 also had the old still porting.

So ..... would you please tell me why that with a 10lb airplane "a .91 fx will struggle to keep that plane flying level"???? Is it a weak engine for it's size??


By-The-Way .... Doesn't have anything to do with powering the plane but it turned out that the hobby shop guy was a WW2 vet, had flown in a Dauntless dive bomber in the pacific. So he did know how to fly and proved it on occasion. I wish he and those like him were still around. He was good people.

[mtwister]

Least power I have in a plane is an Enya .46 4-stroke in a 6 pound Kyosho Cessna 188. Flies it pretty well actually...

Some people are so used to overpowering their planes that they can't fathom putting the recommended engine in them...

Well let's see, I have 3 of the Seagull 90 size planes, the Edge V2, the Yak and the Extra, and all 3 call for a .90 2 stroke. I tried that with the Edge, and installed a .91 FX (which now is in the UCANDO) and it was so underpowered that I had to dive to gain enough speed to do a square loop practicing for IMAC. And, that was at 8 pounds. It now has a Webra 1.20 and is perfect.

[youngun]

........ Some people are so used to overpowering their planes that they can't fathom putting the recommended engine in them...

Just looking at a couple of posts above this one, I'd say you are right. ;) :D

No, the .91 is not weak for it's size, but you are comparing apples to oranges. Wing loading is the factor here. A high wing trainer is going to generate lift starting at low speeds, so that's why a less powerful engine can fly them. Aerobats require you to generate speed over the wings to gain lift, so you need the power to do that. Now, let's add a bipe to this, with a huge drag factor, and weight, now you are asking that engine to work even harder. Try it, you may like how scale it will fly with the engine, but I can guaruntee you if you are over 7 pounds it will not be a true 3D machine. Not just because of engine size, but because of the wing area. At that weight the plane just wont fly well with that size wing area.

Hanging it on the prop just ain't my thang. Never was, never will be.

By-the-way; Given that 3D = hang-it-on-the-prop (big whoppy) What would TRUE 3D be?

However, I have gotten into a bad situation a time or two (i.e. wind gust on take off taking the plane into a nose straight up attitude) which required me to fly it out of it. (if you can't figure out how that was done, learn to fly an airplane, then you'll know) True, a huge engine could have, just by brute force, pulled it out of it. But knowing how to fly was what saved the plane. The last time was an 8lb+ stick (old and heavy) with an old K&B 65 sportster with a 12x6 prop. A big size engine for that plane for sure, but not the huge sizes that have been suggested here as a must. It is my understanding that the K&B 65 sportster isn't considered to be a powerfull engine by todays standards, but it's still more than enough to fly that plane. I have flown that same plane with a webra blackhead 10cc (.60~.61?), an even weaker engine. Probably hard for you to believe, I know.

And bipes are a favorite of mine. Especially the early WW2 bipe trainers and golden age era bipes. So .... Why do I love the Ultimate? :confused:... I don't know. It just appeals to me for some reason. :o A good looking plane if colored right. Also looks like it would have less drag than the older ones.

Apples to oranges? I don't think so!

Airfoils, wing loading and wing area apply to a very great degree when going forward and actually flying the plane, as opposed to, prop hanging, when they aren't near as much in play, or maybe not at all. An example, known by many, is a WW2 fighter. Heavy weight, small wing and wing area. If flown too slow, they are prone to tip stall, and if on a landing approach at that time, crash. Why do they crash? because the wing has stalled, not producing lift any longer and they are no longer flying. Hince, down they come. Yes, you could grossly overpower the plane and just land it on it's tail rudder I guess. But if you want that, why not just get a helicopter and be done with it? Better yet, just learn to fly the plane.

If a person will learn to fly, they can not only use much less engine, but the enjoyment of flying increases more than you can imagine. :) It's just the breaking of old habits and the re-learning that will be frustrating.

After learning to fly, try flying some pattern (flew the old style). That will improve a persons skill a lot. Then you will be able to see where I'm coming from.

But ... If you are happy with where you're at, then enjoy it, After all that's what the hobby is all about. But don't think, and promote the idea, that an airplane MUST HAVE a huge engine to fly. Most don't. Most fly just fine on the wing, in fact usually much better. :)

[youngun]

Here's some links that y'all may find interesting. :)

Seagull Ultimate at Seagulls web site.
http://www.seagullmodels.com/ProductDetail.asp?id=30

Seagull Ultimate manual
http://www.seagullmodels.com/Admin/cgi-bin/SanphamImage/50.pdf

And last
A movie of the Seagull Ultimate hanging it on the prop.
A very nicely done video with some good music for a change. :)
(Just wish they had actually flown it around some, so we could see how/if it flys)
http://www.seagullmodels.com/Admin/cgi-bin/SanphamImage/ULTIMATE-3d-web.wmv

You'll notice in the manual on pages 12 an 13 they are mounting what appears to be a Saito 125a. (I've got one so if it ain't one, it's a twin brother to it) :D
Also look at the engine used in the video. Appears to be the same engine as in the manual. ;) Which means, that engine is WAY TOO MUCH for that plane. :D

On page one, at the bottom left is the country of origin. :(

[mtwister]

3D is way more than just hanging on the prop, and if you don't understand that I'm not going to waste my time and energy explaining it.

The original question that I answered was "does the 91 fx have enough grunt to pull out of a hover ok?"

The answer to that is NO, not at this weight.

So why you guys are jumping all over me about overpowering a plane I don't know, because all I did was answer a question.

It is situations like this that cause tension on the net. People are unable to stick to the point, and that was a direct question with a direct answer. No one was asking to debate me about 3D flying.

So take your WWI slow park flyer home, and get off my back.


Just looking at a couple of posts above this one, I'd say you are right. ;) :D



Hanging it on the prop just ain't my thang. Never was, never will be.

By-the-way; Given that 3D = hang-it-on-the-prop (big whoppy) What would TRUE 3D be?

However, I have gotten into a bad situation a time or two (i.e. wind gust on take off taking the plane into a nose straight up attitude) which required me to fly it out of it. (if you can't figure out how that was done, learn to fly an airplane, then you'll know) True, a huge engine could have, just by brute force, pulled it out of it. But knowing how to fly was what saved the plane. The last time was an 8lb+ stick (old and heavy) with an old K&B 65 sportster with a 12x6 prop. A big size engine for that plane for sure, but not the huge sizes that have been suggested here as a must. It is my understanding that the K&B 65 sportster isn't considered to be a powerfull engine by todays standards, but it's still more than enough to fly that plane. I have flown that same plane with a webra blackhead 10cc (.60~.61?), an even weaker engine. Probably hard for you to believe, I know.

And bipes are a favorite of mine. Especially the early WW2 bipe trainers and golden age era bipes. So .... Why do I love the Ultimate? :confused:... I don't know. It just appeals to me for some reason. :o A good looking plane if colored right. Also looks like it would have less drag than the older ones.

Apples to oranges? I don't think so!

Airfoils, wing loading and wing area apply to a very great degree when going forward and actually flying the plane, as opposed to, prop hanging, when they aren't near as much in play, or maybe not at all. An example, known by many, is a WW2 fighter. Heavy weight, small wing and wing area. If flown too slow, they are prone to tip stall, and if on a landing approach at that time, crash. Why do they crash? because the wing has stalled, not producing lift any longer and they are no longer flying. Hince, down they come. Yes, you could grossly overpower the plane and just land it on it's tail rudder I guess. But if you want that, why not just get a helicopter and be done with it? Better yet, just learn to fly the plane.

If a person will learn to fly, they can not only use much less engine, but the enjoyment of flying increases more than you can imagine. :) It's just the breaking of old habits and the re-learning that will be frustrating.

After learning to fly, try flying some pattern (flew the old style). That will improve a persons skill a lot. Then you will be able to see where I'm coming from.

But ... If you are happy with where you're at, then enjoy it, After all that's what the hobby is all about. But don't think, and promote the idea, that an airplane MUST HAVE a huge engine to fly. Most don't. Most fly just fine on the wing, in fact usually much better. :)

[youngun]

mtwister,

Let's review the situation here a bit;

My question concerning the .91 was;

....Does anyone know how an OS 90fx compares to an original Webra 91 as far as power is concerned? .....

Which was never answered

It was MadMonkey572 that asked;

....
So a 91FX is enough for hovering? Does it have enough grunt to pull out of the hovers okay? ....

And I refer you back to his post #9 of this thread where I believe he was asking Rabbit Leader, since he was the one quoted AND that actually has the plane with a .91 and would be the only one here to actually know the answer for sure without speculation.

And post #10 by mtwister stated;

at 10 pounds, a .91 fx will struggle to keep that plane flying level, and wont even think of hovering, even with a 15x4W prop on it. At 10 pounds, this is a 1.20 to 1.60 2 stroke 3D power plane.

The first part of the first sentence says (bolding for emphasis is mine)
at 10 pounds, a .91 fx will struggle to keep that plane flying level,.. which are your own words.

That said flying level. :)

Your last post started;
3D is way more than just hanging on the prop, and if you don't understand that I'm not going to waste my time and energy explaining it.

I understand more than you realize my friend. I started flying many years ago. And might I point out you never clarified what your term "TRUE 3D" might possibly be.

and then there's
So why you guys are jumping all over me about overpowering a plane I don't know, because all I did was answer a question.

NO! With that I disagree. You were pushing your idea and would not even allow for what the person that actually has one flying had already done. Which was what we were trying to find out more about.
I refer you back to posts #7 and your #10

and last
So take your WWI slow park flyer home, and get off my back.

This, I take it, is supposed to be an insult to me. :rolleyes:

You want me to take my WW1 slow flyer home?..... Hehehe

DO YOU OWN THIS PLACE?

First , Why just that one of all my planes? Man, could I give you a list. Hehehe :D
Second, That Stick ain't slow by any means, when I put an 11x7 on it (I usually use a 12x6 or 13x6). :) The design just looks slow, which has surprised a few folks. :D
It's not a formula 1, but it does just fine. Oh ... It will fly slow if you need it to.

What about my other planes? Should I take them home too?
Ever tried one of Joe Bridis' Dirty Birdis'?? Mine goes pretty good to not be a racing plane. (it's an older pattern plane. VERY NICE flyer)

And buddy, no body is on your back ... yet.

Some helpful suggestions were offered to you to give you more enjoyment of RC flying, and you came back with an insult to me.

If you want peace ... OK ... I'm for it. :)
But If not ... I can't help you

[mtwister]

I am not going to sit here and argue, no time for that. The response of mine still stands, no the .91 fx will not 3D this plane, and along with that I emplore you to put a .91fx on a 10+ plane and see just how well it flies. It will struggle. I remember the Dirty Birds the Kaos' and the rest of those ill handling poor attempts at IMAC pattern planes. You have to fly them fast because that's the only way they'll fly. Anyone can fly fast, that's a fact, now learn how to do rolling harriers (true 3D) a foot off the ground. By the way, how does that Dirty Birdie torgue roll, or better yet, how's the blender on it? Gee, that's right, it only flies around in circles really fast.

I too have been in this hobby a long time.

Please, by all means someone try the .91 2 stroke in this plane so I can hurry up and tell you "I told you so!"




mtwister,

Let's review the situation here a bit;

My question concerning the .91 was;



Which was never answered

It was MadMonkey572 that asked;



And I refer you back to his post #9 of this thread where I believe he was asking Rabbit Leader, since he was the one quoted AND that actually has the plane with a .91 and would be the only one here to actually know the answer for sure without speculation.

And post #10 by mtwister stated;



The first part of the first sentence says (bolding for emphasis is mine)
which are your own words.

That said flying level. :)

Your last post started;


I understand more than you realize my friend. I started flying many years ago. And might I point out you never clarified what your term "TRUE 3D" might possibly be.

and then there's


NO! With that I disagree. You were pushing your idea and would not even allow for what the person that actually has one flying had already done. Which was what we were trying to find out more about.
I refer you back to posts #7 and your #10

and last


This, I take it, is supposed to be an insult to me. :rolleyes:

You want me to take my WW1 slow flyer home?..... Hehehe

DO YOU OWN THIS PLACE?

First , Why just that one of all my planes? Man, could I give you a list. Hehehe :D
Second, That Stick ain't slow by any means, when I put an 11x7 on it (I usually use a 12x6 or 13x6). :) The design just looks slow, which has surprised a few folks. :D
It's not a formula 1, but it does just fine. Oh ... It will fly slow if you need it to.

What about my other planes? Should I take them home too?
Ever tried one of Joe Bridis' Dirty Birdis'?? Mine goes pretty good to not be a racing plane. (it's an older pattern plane. VERY NICE flyer)

And buddy, no body is on your back ... yet.

Some helpful suggestions were offered to you to give you more enjoyment of RC flying, and you came back with an insult to me.

If you want peace ... OK ... I'm for it. :)
But If not ... I can't help you

[MadMonkey572]

I doubt the .91FX will be "struggling" to fly this plane at all, especially after Rabbit Leader stated that his Ultimate worked out to be somewhat lighter than the listed weight. My .60 size Ultra Stick is listed a 6-7 pounds (bought it used and it's had some repair since... the tail was floppy when I bought it :eek: ) but it probably weighs a bit more due to some of the repair work on it. It hovers VERY well off a .61FX and pulls out with authority...

Please, by all means someone try the .91 2 stroke in this plane so I can hurry up and tell you "I told you so!"

I believe I'll do that just to shut you up. I'll even film it and post the video. :)

[youngun]

I doubt the .91FX will be "struggling" to fly this plane at all, especially after Rabbit Leader stated that his Ultimate worked out to be somewhat lighter than the listed weight. My .60 size Ultra Stick is listed a 6-7 pounds (bought it used and it's had some repair since... the tail was floppy when I bought it :eek: ) but it probably weighs a bit more due to some of the repair work on it. It hovers VERY well off a .61FX and pulls out with authority...



I believe I'll do that just to shut you up. I'll even film it and post the video. :)

The reason my old stick is so heavy is not only do they get heavier over the years (not sure why though) but it started out heavy. I didn't spare the epoxy or glue when I built it and covered it with fabric and painted it with polyurethane. I know, that's a no-no these days and people say 'yuk'. But it has always flown very nice. To me that counts more than the other stuff. And I still like the old "Red Baron" style color scheme I put on it. :D

As for the Ultimate powered by a .91 thing: I've been thinking the same as you, except with my webra .91. I could use the saito 125, but it's going to be real interesting to film that plane with that webra in it. If you know what I mean. ;)

And that color scheme can grow on a fellow. :p After seeing that video, and some more pictures of it, I think I'm beginning to like it. Hehehe :D

Well, we've got at least a 2 week wait, maybe more before it is available. I hope I can swing it then. If not then, just as some as I can.


Rabbit Leader, If you show up again, please send me a private message. I would like to ask you several things about your Seagull Ultimate. And with a pm, you will not get shot at. ;)

Y'all have a great day and happy flying. More important, happy landings.

[MadMonkey572]

Well, we've got at least a 2 week wait, maybe more before it is available. I hope I can swing it then. If not then, just as some as I can.

Yeah, that sucks. I have my AKModels .46 size Ultimate on the way right now, it should be here in a couple of days. I'm planning on picking up an Electrifly Ultimate also after reading about it. Funny thing is, I saw the Seagull first... I really want one of these. I'll probably pick one up on one of my next paychecks and stick a .91 in it (for obvious reasons).

BTW, that guy in the video needs to learn how to hover :eek: :D

[youngun]

Yeah, that sucks. I have my AKModels .46 size Ultimate on the way right now, it should be here in a couple of days. I'm planning on picking up an Electrifly Ultimate also after reading about it. Funny thing is, I saw the Seagull first... I really want one of these. I'll probably pick one up on one of my next paychecks and stick a .91 in it (for obvious reasons).

BTW, that guy in the video needs to learn how to hover :eek: :D

Yea, the more I look at the Seagull Ultimate, and especially after looking over the manual and watching that video a couple of times, has made me change from any negative feelings I had about it, to a STRONG wanting for one too.
I'll just have to see how things turn out about getting one in my hands. :p

I like both of Great Planes Ultimates, mostly because of their colors and them being made by Great Planes, but one is too big for any engines that I have and the other is too small for me to see well. But the reports I've read about both have been very positive.

I bought an E-flite electric Ultimate, I think it was a couple of years ago (still have it too). That's when I found out two things (probably a lot more too, that I don't realize or remember right now :D ) One was that the Ultimate is a great flying design. The other was that I can't see that size plane worth a toot. It was one of three planes that I have crashed in my life. But the foam only cracked in one place and was easily repaired with foam CA. My flying buddy said it was just a hard landing, (trying to make me fell better) but to me a landing is when the wheels gently touch down and the plane roles out to a stop without anything broken or bent, not dropping it in from several feet up. :o

About the flying in the video;
You've got good eyes, it didn't occur to me at the time that the plane in the video was doing anything that the guy didn't want it to. I was looking more at the coloring and how well it showed up for visual orientation when looking at the top and bottom, and, of course, the engine used. And with the music (which I like and thought fit with the flying) it looked almost like the plane was dancing to the music to me. It did appear to get away from him a little at one point where it started backing up to him.

Usually that hovering, or prop hanging stuff, is about as interesting to me as watching paint dry or watching grass grow and as such I'm not a big fan of it. It was a challenge at first to learn, but then became boring after the learning period was over. So I went back to what I liked best, and that was trying to be as smooth as I can in my flying, and to put the plane exactly where I want it in the sky. To each his own though. The thing is to enjoy it. If it quits being fun, it's time to quit the hobby.

But, overall, I liked the video and my thoughts were that it was well put together and a good presentation, except that for a product demo video, he should have flown the plane around some, with a few loops and rolls to show how it flys. Example: Does it fly straight and level or dragging its tail? Does it track well through a loop? Does it easily remain on heading in a slow roll down the field, or does it require much correction? The basics can show a lot. Obviously it hovers well, and the Saito is more than enough, as the video shows.

Most of the guys around here that say they fly 3D just mainly hover their plane. There are one or two that try rolling circles. I didn't know this was considered 3D. I just thought it was another maneuver, that was probably considered 'freestyle'. Usually they are all over the place learning this and it's wise to stay under cover when they are up. ;) :D

[mtwister]

You are full of it.

I doubt the .91FX will be "struggling" to fly this plane at all, especially after Rabbit Leader stated that his Ultimate worked out to be somewhat lighter than the listed weight. My .60 size Ultra Stick is listed a 6-7 pounds (bought it used and it's had some repair since... the tail was floppy when I bought it :eek: ) but it probably weighs a bit more due to some of the repair work on it. It hovers VERY well off a .61FX and pulls out with authority...



I believe I'll do that just to shut you up. I'll even film it and post the video. :)

[mtwister]

The video in which you're referring to, is the factory test pilot, flying the plane on an ASP 1.20 4 stroke with an APC 16x4W prop. This plane was at nearly full power to hold the hovers, and as you can tell, they never showed him pulling out of a hover, that's because he couldn't, he had to nose over and pick up speed. Personally knowing the importer, I can tell you more about that flight if you need to know.

That is also another bad example of how little hovering plays in the 3D game.

[MadMonkey572]

About the flying in the video;
You've got good eyes, it didn't occur to me at the time that the plane in the video was doing anything that the guy didn't want it to.

After watching the video again, I'm noticing that the trees in the background are bending too :eek: apparently the wind was blowing pretty hard. I'm changing my opinion to "That guy needs to learn to be smoother in the wind" than "That guy needs to learn to hover"!

I was looking more at the coloring and how well it showed up for visual orientation when looking at the top and bottom, and, of course, the engine used.

Looked good to me. Orientation will be a cinch with this thing :D

Usually that hovering, or prop hanging stuff, is about as interesting to me as watching paint dry or watching grass grow and as such I'm not a big fan of it. It was a challenge at first to learn, but then became boring after the learning period was over. So I went back to what I liked best, and that was trying to be as smooth as I can in my flying, and to put the plane exactly where I want it in the sky. To each his own though. The thing is to enjoy it. If it quits being fun, it's time to quit the hobby.

I agree with keeping it fun. I do everything though; I have speed planes, pattern style planes, 3D planes, electrics, slow flyers, everything you can think of. I have to keep some variety in my flying. I go nuts whenever I can, but there's times when I like to kick back and fly my Cessna or Decathlon in big, lazy circles. Then I go back to 3Ding my Four Star .40 :D

except that for a product demo video, he should have flown the plane around some, with a few loops and rolls to show how it flys. Example: Does it fly straight and level or dragging its tail? Does it track well through a loop? Does it easily remain on heading in a slow roll down the field, or does it require much correction? The basics can show a lot.

Yeah, what's up with that? I want to see it FLY, if I wanted to see it hanging on the prop I'd hang it from my ceiling :p

Most of the guys around here that say they fly 3D just mainly hover their plane. There are one or two that try rolling circles. I didn't know this was considered 3D. I just thought it was another maneuver, that was probably considered 'freestyle'.

A basic rolling circle isn't considered 3D flying... a rolling harrier would be though. Rolling circles are a common aerobatic maneuver used by full scale pilots too. There's hardly any 3D maneuvers that full-scale pilots can handle with current power-to-weight ratios. Only the Turbo Raven could do a true hover and pull out of it as far as I know. Other planes could fake it well though ;) I'm waiting for the Turbine Toucan biplane to come out... now THAT will be interesting!

You are full of it.

:)

[rifleman_btx]

You are full of it.


So, just because you haven't seen it done means it can't be done at all? :rolleyes: If we all had your frame of mind, we wouldn't have planes to fly, cars to drive, and we would still be throwing sticks and rocks at each other. Thank God for out of the box thinkers. :p

[youngun]

After watching the video again, I'm noticing that the trees in the background are bending too :eek: apparently the wind was blowing pretty hard. I'm changing my opinion to "That guy needs to learn to be smoother in the wind" than "That guy needs to learn to hover"!

I had not noticed the wind ether. Just goes to show you what a person can miss when they're concentrating on one thing. In this case the coloring of the plane and the Saito engine that is in the plane powering it. (The twin valve covers typical to Saitos can be seen in several segments of the video.)

With that kind of wind, I'd say the guy is doing a pretty good job. :D



Looked good to me. Orientation will be a cinch with this thing :D

Yes. That's my opinion too. I guess that yellow is what makes it show up so well.



I agree with keeping it fun. I do everything though; I have speed planes, pattern style planes, 3D planes, electrics, slow flyers, everything you can think of. I have to keep some variety in my flying. I go nuts whenever I can, but there's times when I like to kick back and fly my Cessna or Decathlon in big, lazy circles. Then I go back to 3Ding my Four Star .40 :D

I also like several different kinds of planes and types of flying. My list has also included the old timers (free flight designs converted over to RC), Bipes of just about any vintage, the Reno pylon racers, good old easy flying sport fun flyers for a relaxing Sunday afternoon, many scale planes, as well as those mentioned before. Over the years I have acquired a good little collection. :D (some of the new pattern planes look real good and may find a place in that collection too, later on. But the Ultimates will come first)

And even the 3D prop hanging is OK, in small doses. What I don't like is a guy to do a whole flight just hovering over the center of the runway. It doesn't leave any place for another flyer to go up and any place for one already up to come down. Unless he wants to put it down in the brush or fly through the plane hovering, which has happened. :eek: I think that was a mistake though. At least that's what was said. Episodes like that have left a very bad taste in my mouth about 3D. I think it has had an effect on some others around here too, but you would have to ask them to be sure.

If a guy enjoys hovering. Great. Do what you find enjoyable. Just, in my opinion, not right over the runway. My opinion is he needs to also think of others too.

A basic rolling circle isn't considered 3D flying... a rolling harrier would be though.

Aaaaah :o The harrier part didn't register :o Sorry :o


I'm waiting for the Turbine Toucan biplane to come out... now THAT will be interesting!

I don't think I've heard of that one. What's it like? Got a link with a picture maybe? :confused:

[MadMonkey572]

And even the 3D prop hanging is OK, in small doses. What I don't like is a guy to do a whole flight just hovering over the center of the runway. It doesn't leave any place for another flyer to go up and any place for one already up to come down. Unless he wants to put it down in the brush or fly through the plane hovering, which has happened. :eek: I think that was a mistake though. At least that's what was said. Episodes like that have left a very bad taste in my mouth about 3D. I think it has had an effect on some others around here too, but you would have to ask them to be sure.

We've had plenty of discussions and arguments about that at my club, mostly due to the "poopy pants" safety Nazi. It all boils down, at least at our field, to communication. Our guys are always calling out their maneuvers, whether they'll be hovering, high speed passes, low passes, or something else that requires focus. That way everybody knows where not to be. Obviously, that's not going to work at every field, due to anything from too much distance between the pilot stations (where you'd be yelling at each other) to stupid pilots ignoring others. We tend to get along pretty well here. Personally, I do my hovering on the opposite side of the runway so people can still fly past. Keeps both of us, and spectators, safe, besides we have a few trees on the other side of the strip so if they're far enough out to hit me, they'll hit a tree first :D

We even have choppers and sport planes flying at once because we all know what's going on. I guess some of our guys are the rare "plays well with others" types ;)

I don't think I've heard of that one. What's it like? Got a link with a picture maybe? :confused:

And how :D

Here's their page: http://www.turbinetoucan.com/

Quique Somenzini already secured the rights to make an RC version. The full-scale one weighs 1,650 lbs and has a 750hp turboprop engine :eek:

And that works out to be a 1.5 to 1 thrust to weight ratio... YIKES!!

Maiden flight was completed on May 10th. It'll be on the airshow circuit next year if all goes well :D

[youngun]

And how :D

Here's their page: http://www.turbinetoucan.com/

Quique Somenzini already secured the rights to make an RC version. The full-scale one weighs 1,650 lbs and has a 750hp turboprop engine :eek:

And that works out to be a 1.5 to 1 thrust to weight ratio... YIKES!!

Maiden flight was completed on May 10th. It'll be on the airshow circuit next year if all goes well :D

WOW What a Bipe!!
Wish it would be available in a .60 size model. What I've seen of Quique Somenzinis' stuff is very nice, but also WAY, WAY out of my range.

[mtwister]

So, just because you haven't seen it done means it can't be done at all? :rolleyes: If we all had your frame of mind, we wouldn't have planes to fly, cars to drive, and we would still be throwing sticks and rocks at each other. Thank God for out of the box thinkers. :p

Obviously you missed the post where I said that I had a .91fx in an Edge, that came in under 8 pounds, and it wasn't enough, and now that engine is in a UCANDO. You don't know my frame of mind right now.

[youngun]

Thought someone might could use this info:

Here are some links to a few possible engines for this plane based on what info is currently available and that I can find. :D

2 Strokes:

O.S. .91 FX Ringed w/Muffler (http://www2.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXBY47&P=0)

SuperTigre G-90 Ringed w/Muffler (http://www2.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXFV79&P=0)

Evolution 1.00NX Engine w/Muffler (a little big but I thought an option) (http://www.horizonhobby.com/Products/Default.aspx?ProdID=EVOE1100)

4 Strokes

Magnum XL 1.20 RFS manual (couldn't find any other good picture) OS look-alike with single valve cover (http://media.hobbypeople.net/manual/210975.pdf)

A.S.P. Four Strokes (120 is about the middle of the page on the right side) OS look-alike with single valve cover (http://www.justengines.unseen.org/ASP30120.htm)

O.S. FS-120 Surpass III Engine w/Pump with typical OS single valve cover (http://www.osengines.com/engines/osmg0935.html)

Saito FA-125A AAC w/Muffler (typical twin valve covers as found on Saitos) (http://www.horizonhobby.com/Products/Default.aspx?ProdId=SAIE125A)

The OS, Saito and Supertigres are known for good power and running. The magnum engines seem to be gaining popularity around here in the last couple months, but haven't seen one of their 4 strokes. I don't know about the evolution or ASP engines yet.

I'll probably go with an old webra .91 2 stroke I have, in order to keep the weight low with great power. (that webra will jerk a knot in it's tail :D ) Might later go with the Saito 125a I already have just for the 4 stroke sound.

[MadMonkey572]

Thought someone might could use this info:

Here are some links to a few possible engines for this plane based on what info is currently available and that I can find. :D

2 Strokes:

O.S. .91 FX Ringed w/Muffler (http://www2.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXBY47&P=0)

SuperTigre G-90 Ringed w/Muffler (http://www2.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXFV79&P=0)

Evolution 1.00NX Engine w/Muffler (a little big but I thought an option) (http://www.horizonhobby.com/Products/Default.aspx?ProdID=EVOE1100)

4 Strokes

Magnum XL 1.20 RFS manual (couldn't find any other good picture) OS look-alike with single valve cover (http://media.hobbypeople.net/manual/210975.pdf)

A.S.P. Four Strokes (120 is about the middle of the page on the right side) OS look-alike with single valve cover (http://www.justengines.unseen.org/ASP30120.htm)

O.S. FS-120 Surpass III Engine w/Pump with typical OS single valve cover (http://www.osengines.com/engines/osmg0935.html)

Saito FA-125A AAC w/Muffler (typical twin valve covers as found on Saitos) (http://www.horizonhobby.com/Products/Default.aspx?ProdId=SAIE125A)

The OS, Saito and Supertigres are known for good power and running. The magnum engines seem to be gaining popularity around here in the last couple months, but haven't seen one of their 4 strokes. I don't know about the evolution or ASP engines yet.

I'll probably go with an old webra .91 2 stroke I have, in order to keep the weight low with great power. (that webra will jerk a knot in it's tail :D ) Might later go with the Saito 125a I already have just for the 4 stroke sound.

In my experience the Supertigres don't have a ton of power so I'll probably go with the .91FX. I have an ST .75 in my Great Planes Cap 21 and I'm not too happy with the vertical performance... I've always been impressed with the FX series though, great engines. Like you I may jump over to a 4-stroke later though, I like the torque ;)

[youngun]

In my experience the Supertigres don't have a ton of power so I'll probably go with the .91FX. I have an ST .75 in my Great Planes Cap 21 and I'm not too happy with the vertical performance... I've always been impressed with the FX series though, great engines. Like you I may jump over to a 4-stroke later though, I like the torque ;)

I've not had one of the OS FXs so I can't say. I would still like to know how it compares to the Webra .91 I have though. Example: Will the OS turn the size props the Webra will turn and at what RPM, if not at the same RPM as the Webra. I'm thinking that OS has probably made a better and better engine over the years and may have caught up with the Webra by now.

I wish Rabbit Leader would come back and tell us more.

I know how well the Webra .91 flew a .60 size Top Flight Corsair that turned out right at 10lbs. (one of the first ones and it had too much junk added to it in the build) The plane wasn't mine, but you could see watching it fly that it flew fast and with PLENTY of power. (BIG loops and real good straight up pulling power) He just couldn't slow it down much for landings because of the weight for that wing area. It finally stalled on final one day and the guy didn't rebuild it.

I wish I could comment on the power of the current Supertigres. Especially compared to the OS FX. But I just don't know.

The reason I added the SuperTigre to the list was it was always considered to be one of the top engines. Plus there aren't that many choices that I found for an engine that size. However, if the new Supertigres don't have the power, then it would probably be wise to get something else. (but I hate to jump on the OS bandwagon because of all the hype surrounding them)

It would be nice if Tower Hobbies made a .91 ABC to go with the rest of their ABC line of engines. That should be a real Hoss of an engine.

And I haven't been able to find a Webra .91 again. At least not yet. They may not be made now.

I guess though, until one of us can actually get one of the Ultimates and try it, we'll have to rely on those like Rabbit Leader that have already done it to tell us about it.

HURRY UP SEAGULL!! I never was good at waiting ;) :D

[MadMonkey572]

I wish I could comment on the power of the current Supertigres. Especially compared to the OS FX. But I just don't know.

I have one of the older Italian-made ST's that are supposedly much better than the newer ones. While it runs great and is reliable (once I got it tuned), it just doesn't seem to have the grunt of similar O.S. engines. I'm not a bandwagon type of guy, so hype doesn't really get me to buy anything. I've just had VERY good experiences with every OS engine I've owned, especially the FX's.

It would be nice if Tower Hobbies made a .91 ABC to go with the rest of their ABC line of engines. That should be a real Hoss of an engine.

I agree, I've heard good things about their engines. I had a Tower .40 bushing motor right after they came out and I wasn't impressed, but the newer engines seem to have the bugs worked out. The .75 makes a good bit of power from what I hear!

I guess though, until one of us can actually get one of the Ultimates and try it, we'll have to rely on those like Rabbit Leader that have already done it to tell us about it.

HURRY UP SEAGULL!! I never was good at waiting ;) :D

Yup, waiting kills me :o

I'll be picking one up shortly after they arrive if all goes well and I don't have bills to pay :D

[youngun]

I have one of the older Italian-made ST's that are supposedly much better than the newer ones. While it runs great and is reliable (once I got it tuned), it just doesn't seem to have the grunt of similar O.S. engines. I'm not a bandwagon type of guy, so hype doesn't really get me to buy anything. I've just had VERY good experiences with every OS engine I've owned, especially the FX's.

I've ran those Italian SuperTigres, and once you learn how to adjust them, they ran great. But you did have to learn to adjust them. Similar to having to learn the quirks of adjusting a Fox to get them to run right.

OS must have REALLY come a long way to have that kind of power. They were always an easy to run engine with a carburetor that didn't need a lot of fiddling with, which made them popular even at their inflated prices. But other engines with more power could run away from them. Now if they have the power too, they would be hard to beat.



I'll be picking one up shortly after they arrive if all goes well and I don't have bills to pay :D

I've been thinking about doing what a friend of mine said he did years ago when his income was low.

He said he put all the names of the bills he had in a hat. He would pull the names out one by one and pay each one of those until the money ran out.

Then if anybody complained, he would not put their name in the hat next month. :D :D

[youngun]

By-The-Way:

I found another .90. Here's a link, but you might want to sit down before you look at the price. :eek:

Jett Engineering - High Performance Model Engines (http://www.jettengineering.com/engines/sj90-new.html)

And their other model .90 (http://www.jettengineering.com/engines/bse100.html)

[rifleman_btx]

I had not noticed the wind ether. Just goes to show you what a person can miss when they're concentrating on one thing. In this case the coloring of the plane and the Saito engine that is in the plane powering it. (The twin valve covers typical to Saitos can be seen in several segments of the video.)

With that kind of wind, I'd say the guy is doing a pretty good job.


He wouldn't have noticed it either if I hadn't told him. But when you learn to watch for the quickest of change in view to react on in drag racing, even the littlest thing in the background is seen. Most people look at the subject, but if you see the whole picture you never miss the details. Oh and if anyone can make a brick hover in reguards to RC, Madmonkey can do it. That dude can fly. :)

[MadMonkey572]

OS must have REALLY come a long way to have that kind of power.

Maybe I'm prejudiced because I haven't really had that many other brands besides OS...

All I know is, the .46FX is my favorite engine by FAR for any .40 size plane (it will hover my 4-Star .40 ARF with ease :eek: ) and my .61FX's have great power also. My Ultra Stick .60 has unlimited vertical with one, and my Kyosho Cap 232 isn't bad either. It's way heavier though.

The most impressive performance I've seen in any of my own engines was a Hirtenberger (now Gold Cup) .40 which I ran on an old Super Sportster. I was partial to 3-blade props back then (this was years ago) so I was running a 10X6 3-blade prop and it was turning over 12.5K!! That was a FAST little booger! It also had a 16oz tank. It would run forever :D

As for the Jett engines, yes, very impressive. And they'd take a very impressive chunk out of my paycheck :eek:

Thanks for the compliment, Rifleman :D You aren't bad yourself for a n00b (comparatively speaking) HA!! Just kidding!

[Rabbit Leader]

My...My A feller goes away for a few days and a small war breaks out.
I will try and answer some questions.
I have weighed the model. It weighs 4.1Kg with a sullivan smoke generator in it (700g dry). The advertised weight is 4.2 - 4.8 Kg.
The spinner dia is 70mm
The prop is 15X4W paddle prop or 13x10 std prop
The covering is mainly yellow but the the main blue bits are covered in blue (wing LE, parts of fus).
I wish I had a video to post, but i don't.

I don't know what "real 3d" is, in the same way that I dont know what "real Opera" is or what a "real club sandwich" is. Therefore I am not qualified to comment. But, I speak from experience. With the C/G set to 11cm and a 13x10 prop It is as fast and aerobatic as any pattern ship that I have flown. It will fly the FAI schedule with ease.
With the C/G set to 16mm and a 15 x 4W paddle prop it can be flown much slower and still maintain authoritative control especialy on rudder and elevator.

I am not an acomplished 3d pilot. I cannot prop hang for hours on end, (I can occasionally manage 3 seconds!). but this plane will take off, fly vertical for several seconds, throttled back to near stationary, then opened up and it will carry on climbing as it was before. It is certainly a better performer than me. However of all the people in my club who have flown it no one has said that it NEEDS more power. I have had the usual comments from bolting on a 60cc gas engine to strapping on a gas turbine, but the general oppinion is that it is "just fine".

The only other "3D-ish" plane that I own is a Bossanova. The Ultimate is not quite as nimble or as slow as the Bossanova. But I have no idea how the Bossanova, powered by a miniscule Irvine 53 2-stroke, measures up as a "real 3d" contender.

When I got the Ultimate I had two engines without aeroplanes bolted to them, An OS 91FX and an OS120 SurpassII. The advertised power outputs are:-

91 FX 2.8Hp/15000 rpm
FS120 2.1Hp/12000 rpm

The 4 stroke has less power but more torque, the 2 stroke has less torque but more rpm. I went with the 91 because there was less cowling to cut out and the plane balanced perfectly, meaning to upgrade to the 120 if required. I have no intention to change the motor.

Admittedly with a full glo tank AND a full Oil smoke tank (900cc!) it handles like a wet banana but once you wind it up, fly jet style & switch on the smoke it looks fantastic. BTW it's REAL smoke!

Now, Gentlemen please calm down, It's only a model.

[MadMonkey572]

Hmm.. barely over 9 pounds with a 700g smoke generator. If I'm not mistaken, 700g is 1.54lbs?

With an advertised weight of 9.2 to 10.6 lbs, how in the WORLD did it manage to come out that light? I'm impressed if it really does weight tha! No wonder the .91FX has that much capability in it.

Now I really can't wait to get one! :D

For you other guys here's a link to a dealer with a few more pictures of what you get...

Clicky Here (http://www.jperkinsdistribution.co.uk/detail.php?JPNO=5500178&activepage=1&Navmain=Aircraft%20-%20ARTF&subcatname=ARTF%20-%20Seagull)

[Rabbit Leader]

Oops sorry folks!

Sullivan Smoke system weighs 0.7 of 1lb
NOT 0.7 of 1 kg.

Then you add 900cc of smoke fluid (50/50 ATF & Brake fluid) about 800g with the tank right on the C/G

I did say that it handles like a wet banana.

It would handle weight of the smoke system better with a FS120 or larger but in my experience these mid range 4 strokes don't generate enough exhaust heat to make effective smoke

A 2st 91 running 30% nitro at full bore generates a volume of smoke that Casey Jones would be proud of.

[MadMonkey572]

Ah, that makes more sense! Thanks for sharing the info.

Sound like the plane will still turn out to be significantly lighter than advertised; wonder how they missed it by so much? I'm not interested in a smoke system (at least not for this one) so I'll have even less weight on mine.

[youngun]

Thanks for all the info Rabbit Leader. :D :D

[youngun]

Oops sorry folks!

Sullivan Smoke system weighs 0.7 of 1lb
NOT 0.7 of 1 kg.

Then you add 900cc of smoke fluid (50/50 ATF & Brake fluid) about 800g with the tank right on the C/G

I did say that it handles like a wet banana.

It would handle weight of the smoke system better with a FS120 or larger but in my experience these mid range 4 strokes don't generate enough exhaust heat to make effective smoke

A 2st 91 running 30% nitro at full bore generates a volume of smoke that Casey Jones would be proud of.

If I'm understanding this right, that's just over 9lbs of airplane, plus a tank of fuel, plus .7lb of smoke pump, plus the weight of almost a quart of smoke oil.

If what I have there, just above, is correct, it's no wonder it would handle "like a wet banana". That should be over 11lbs. Depending on the weight of the liquids.

If I remember right, water weighs about 8.34 lbs per gallon, which would make a quart weigh about 2lbs and a pint about 1lb, give or take a bit. That would be adding about 3lbs, if it was water. The fuel and oils should be a little lighter than water though, so the added liquid weight should be something just under 3lbs. Plus the .7lb pump weight.

Yes, I can see how that would hurt the handling. But at the same time, it says a lot for the capabilities of the .91 to do the job, and for the plane itself to be able to carry it.

Thanks for your post. It is encouraging to know just how well the .91 does work.



A question:
Did the plane require any added weight to balance it. If so how much, and is that a part of the 4.1 kg?

[rifleman_btx]

Cool, Get that thing Madmonkey, I wana see that thing fly.

[Dick Moore]

I have a Goldberg that is 15 years old with an OS 91 4-S w/ 13-6 Zinger it flys great fast do anything you want. Our field is 5,000' above sea level. I am thinking about getting a YAK-54 putting a new OS 91 4-S in it, its on the low end if you keep the weight down should fly great.

[MadMonkey572]

Well, it's available at all of my LHS... anybody get one yet? Unfortunately (not really unfortunate :D) I'm saving up for a turbo kit for my car, so I won't be able to pick one up just yet. Anybody have a go?

[propnut1]

Has anyone tried one with an OS 120 Ax? Was looking at trying this setup but haven't done anything yet. I have the Great Planes Ultimate with a OS 160 Fx and it could use more power.

[MadMonkey572]

Depends on if you're going to be doing any 3D. If you're looking for sport-pattern flying, a 1.20AX should be great. For 3D, a Saito 1.25 4-stroke would suffice. There's a couple of threads on RCU about it but not much solid information yet. I haven't been able to get one yet either.

[youngun]

Here's some links that y'all may find interesting. :)

Seagull Ultimate at Seagulls web site.
http://www.seagullmodels.com/ProductDetail.asp?id=30

Seagull Ultimate manual
http://www.seagullmodels.com/Admin/cgi-bin/SanphamImage/50.pdf

And last
A movie of the Seagull Ultimate hanging it on the prop.
A very nicely done video with some good music for a change. :)
(Just wish they had actually flown it around some, so we could see how/if it flys)
http://www.seagullmodels.com/Admin/cgi-bin/SanphamImage/ULTIMATE-3d-web.wmv

You'll notice in the manual on pages 12 an 13 they are mounting what appears to be a Saito 125a. (I've got one so if it ain't one, it's a twin brother to it) :D
Also look at the engine used in the video. Appears to be the same engine as in the manual. ;) Which means, that engine is WAY TOO MUCH for that plane. :D



The links in the post have been updated because SeaGull changed their website.

[youngun]

I finally found one of these at a hobby shop.

When I opened the box to take a look, two things came to mind.

First; A very good looking plane that is well packaged and padded and looked like "quality". (I know looks can be deceiving)

Second; It was smaller than I expected. It looks, to me, like a .60 size airplane.

With some things said in this thread about putting an engine bigger than a 1.25 in it - I guess it "grew" bigger in my mind. :D

After seeing it in the box - My thoughts were - Probably a 1.25 would be too much engine. But that's just my thoughts. :)

Horizon Hobby shows several engines for this plane; the 1.25 being the largest of these.

I'll probably get one of these when business picks back up. Until then - just looking. ;)

[isamike]

I have one with an OS 120AX, unlimited verticle, more power than ever needed.

[hirpm]

Have flown mine several times, Zenoah G20i-15X6 prop, 10oz. tank, 10.2lbs.
Goes vertical out of sight. This engine is underated. Thier CG is a MILE OFF. Almost did not get it on the ground first flight, way tail heavy. Had to move the ignition module & a 4cell C size ignition pack all the way up front behind the firewall, flys great now. I personally think the G20 has a lot more torque than a 120. Smooth running & cranks so easy & 93 octane is still a lot less than nitro. This thing will really slow down, no bad habits. Save your Confederate money, the South will rise again. :)

[jrbackus]

I have one with an OS 120AX, unlimited verticle, more power than ever needed.

Thats what I wanted to hear!!! I have been waiting to hear from someone who put a 2 stroke 120 in one of these.

Now, is the OS 120AX worth it??? I have a hard time paying $250 for an engine when I can buy TWO of the GMS 120's for the same price... I know I know, you get what you pay for but from what I have read about the GMS engines, they're pretty darn good... Then there's the Super Tiger 90 which would be plenty of engine for some sport flying for $125... Or for 25-50 bucks more, you can get the bigger super tigers... They're way too big for this airplane but that price is pretty sweet...


--Jeremy

[jrbackus]

Have flown mine several times, Zenoah G20i-15X6 prop, 10oz. tank, 10.2lbs.
Goes vertical out of sight. This engine is underated. Thier CG is a MILE OFF. Almost did not get it on the ground first flight, way tail heavy. Had to move the ignition module & a 4cell C size ignition pack all the way up front behind the firewall, flys great now. I personally think the G20 has a lot more torque than a 120. Smooth running & cranks so easy & 93 octane is still a lot less than nitro. This thing will really slow down, no bad habits. Save your Confederate money, the South will rise again. :)
Any chance you can tell us what CG worked well???

--Jeremy

[youngun]

Thats what I wanted to hear!!! I have been waiting to hear from someone who put a 2 stroke 120 in one of these.

Now, is the OS 120AX worth it??? I have a hard time paying $250 for an engine when I can buy TWO of the GMS 120's for the same price... I know I know, you get what you pay for but from what I have read about the GMS engines, they're pretty darn good... Then there's the Super Tiger 90 which would be plenty of engine for some sport flying for $125... Or for 25-50 bucks more, you can get the bigger super tigers... They're way too big for this airplane but that price is pretty sweet...


--Jeremy

If you are shopping for an engine and aren't hung up on the hype surrounding the higher priced brands, you might want to look at the SK line that Kangke has. They are also available at ATS RC Planes.

According to what I've read on the forums, the SK engines are said to be more of a torque engine instead of a high rpm engine, which would allow the use of a bigger prop. And they get very good reports in the posts I've read.

Here's a couple of links, if you're interested;
Also notice the price includes a muffler (GMS 1.20 needs a muffler) and parts are available.

SK engines at Kangke (http://www.kangkeusa.com/skengines.htm)

SK engines at ATS RC Planes (http://www.atsrcplanes.com/skengines.htm)

[jrbackus]

If you are shopping for an engine and aren't hung up on the hype surrounding the higher priced brands, you might want to look at the SK line that Kangke has. They are also available at ATS RC Planes.

According to what I've read on the forums, the SK engines are said to be more of a torque engine instead of a high rpm engine, which would allow the use of a bigger prop. And they get very good reports in the posts I've read.

Here's a couple of links, if you're interested;
Also notice the price includes a muffler (GMS 1.20 needs a muffler) and parts are available.

SK engines at Kangke (http://www.kangkeusa.com/skengines.htm)

SK engines at ATS RC Planes (http://www.atsrcplanes.com/skengines.htm)
Hmmm, you've got me thinking again...

[propnut1]

What muffler did you use on your OS 120 AX on the Ultimate? Also what prop?

I have one with an OS 120AX, unlimited verticle, more power than ever needed.

[kdk3187]

hirpm,

I just got one with a G20, same prop, etc. Would like more info on your CG and any other set-up issues.

Thanks, Sean

[lrglnman]

yes I need info on the g20 and also on the evolution 26 which I think weighs less tha the zenoah .

[jblloyd]

Can anyone tell me what they found to be a good CG for this model?

[aeropm]

Can anyone tell me what they found to be a good CG for this model?

Hello jblloyd,

I just received my Seagull Ultimate. It will be converted to Electric, using an RCmobat VA5340-07 Outrunner ( http://rcmobat.com/pages/VA53-40-07.html ) with 12S-4000-20C Lipo's and Phoenix HV110 ESC.

For CG I plan to use the same as the proven Carl Goldberg Ultimate. The CG is given completely differently, measuring back from the bottom wing (instead from top wing for the Seagull), besides the fuselage at 2 3/8". CG range is 1 7/8" to 2 7/8".

Regards,
aeropm

[zenon5940]

Hi Aeropm. I think you have a great idea converting this bird to electric power. Looks like the VA5340 from RCmobat is going to deliver all the power you'll need to fly this airplane. What size prop do you intend to use on it?

[aeropm]

Hi Aeropm. I think you have a great idea converting this bird to electric power. Looks like the VA5340 from RCmobat is going to deliver all the power you'll need to fly this airplane. What size prop do you intend to use on it?

Hi Zenon5940,

I will do some testing with a few APC's E props, starting with a 20x8E. I may settle on the APC22x12WE which shoud be an excellent prop for this kind of airplane. My friend Xavier is flying his 11 lb Pattern Aircraft with a 22x12 on 10S, with a similar motor. Anyway, the props are still to be received before doing any testing.

Here is a picture of my work, up to now : the Top Wing has not been installed yet, so it's a MonoWing Ultimate.

[zenon5940]

Thanks for the photos Aeropm !

Sure does look great that new plane of yours! hope you keep us posted with the results when you do the tests. Always fascinates me when planes this big go electric... Something that we could hardly dream of a couple of years ago and is now so possibe and affordable with the new motors and batteries on the market.

Zenon

[eddyimac2003]

Hi!. Is the OS 1.20 AX a good choice?. Any flight report? What about the 90º muffler extenssion?
Thanks!
Eddy

[propnut1]

.,,,

[eddyimac2003]

See next post

[eddyimac2003]

Anyone tried crrc gf26i or any similar gas engine?

[aeropm]

Here are the results of the Tests performed on the RCmobat VA5340-07 Outrunner, coupled with a Phoenix HV110 ESC, 12S-4000-20C Lipo's, and an APC 20x8E Prop : 64.4 Amps at 37.9 V = 2440 Watts witch will be more than enough for an 11 lb aircraft (220 W /lb is a lots of power !). To see the difference in performance, the next trial will be with an APC 19x8E prop.

Enclosed picture shows that the Ultimate fits in my trailer, fully assembled (no lost time at the field to install wings and rigging).

[jrbackus]

Here are the results of the Tests performed on the RCmobat VA5340-07 Outrunner, coupled with a Phoenix HV110 ESC, 12S-4000-20C Lipo's, and an APC 20x8E Prop : 64.4 Amps at 37.9 V = 2440 Watts witch will be more than enough for an 11 lb aircraft (220 W /lb is a lots of power !). To see the difference in performance, the next trial will be with an APC 19x8E prop.

Enclosed picture shows that the Ultimate fits in my trailer, fully assembled (no lost time at the field to install wings and rigging).

I don't know much about electric setups but from the looks of that picture, I think you need a bigger prop...

--Jeremy

[MadMonkey572]

^^ I honestly don't think that's a 20X8 on there in the pic ;)

[jrbackus]

^^ I honestly don't think that's a 20X8 on there in the pic ;)
If it is, that is one HUGE airplane...

--Jeremy

[customcarmaker]

Well, it's available at all of my LHS... anybody get one yet? Unfortunately (not really unfortunate :D) I'm saving up for a turbo kit for my car, so I won't be able to pick one up just yet. Anybody have a go?


What kind of car and what kind of kit? I drag race front wheel drive cars. I have a cavalier.

[MadMonkey572]

What kind of car and what kind of kit? I drag race front wheel drive cars. I have a cavalier.
I was going to ge ta turbo kit, but I started autocrossing and realized that a turbo would stick me into a class I wouldn't be competitive in. I decided to stick with naturally aspirated for now.

I drive a Miata and Integra. Here's my Miata Cardomain: http://www.cardomain.com/ride/2962126

[jblloyd]

I was going to ge ta turbo kit, but I started autocrossing and realized that a turbo would stick me into a class I wouldn't be competitive in. I decided to stick with naturally aspirated for now.

I drive a Miata and Integra. Here's my Miata Cardomain: http://www.cardomain.com/ride/2962126

And ... what size prop do you run on those??

[M Carr]

I have the Seagull ultimate also. I tried a Saito 125 on it and wasnt really impressed. So I did what aeropm did. I converted mine to electrc too.

My setup:

E-flite power 160
Castle HV85 esc.
using 10s lipo setup(2 flightpower 5s 3700's in series)
APC 18x8e prop.(It can easily swing a 19or20 if needed)

all up weight including batteries is right at 12lb. power is close to 175watts per pound. and is extremely fun to fly.

With that setup I am getting 2000 watts and power is unlimited. Pulls a maximum of 57amps and usually I get 8 to 10 minutes (or less) depending on how hard I fly it.

It took a little thinking but all in all the conversion was fairly easy and it paid off big time in the performance area.

[MadMonkey572]

And ... what size prop do you run on those??

Closest thing to a prop is probably the radiator fan... hmm.. I'm guessing a 22X10? :D

I thought I posted that I maidened one of these recently, but looking back I can't seem to find it.

Anyway, a friend of mine bought one and installed a Saito 1.25 in it. I maidened it a couple of months ago and it flew GREAT. Stable, smooth, great control, and precise...

Next time he brings it out I'm going to try some light 3D with it and see how it goes. For now I won't be buying one since I acquired a Goldberg Ultimate that I need to get into the air.

But yes, the 1.25 is a great engine for it and you won't be disappointed in the flight characteristics.

[Darren Hintze]

I just picked one of these up at my LHS for a blow-out price. Glad to see someone has already done an electric conversion because mine is going up with an E-flight Power 110.

[NumbSkull]

For those that have converted this to epower. Where are your packs located, and are they easy to get to?

[M Carr]

After posting my Power 160 and 10s setup I switched it out to an Eflite power 90 on 8s with a APC 16x8e prop, was a much lighter setup for it and flew just as good. weight on 8s was right at 10lbs 4oz.

here is how I did my battery setup.

The battery tray is set at an angle(slopes down towards the bottom of the firewall) and I cut a rectangle out under the motor box for airflow. Two 4-40 screws with blindnuts at the back of the battery tray held it in and I pulled the whole thing out up through the canopy opening. CG wasnt a problem with the batteries in that location either. I did end up removing the spacer plate on the battery tray afterwards it wasnt really needed.

The setup worked great but unfortunatly I cant get any other pictures of it. It now has a new owner and has been changed back to glow.. :(

[hwka]

Stock Seagull 90-120 Ultimate
Fuji BT24ei
JR DSX9 Transmitter(USA = 2.4 Ghz JR9303)
Spektrum 9 channel 2.4 Ghz Rx
Aluminium spinner and APC 16X8 prop
Hitec 6635 Servos on flight surfaces
JR 539 Servo for throttle
Battery for ignition Sanyo 1100 Nicad
Battery for Rx Sanyo 1700 Nicad
Remainder standard as supplied.

C of G: Way too nose heavy.
Range check showed RF interference with engine running.
Fix: Replace aileron joiners between upper and lower wings with 4-40 threaded rods inside carbon tubes and then ends shrinked tight. No rattling and aileron join now rigid whereas before it was quite sloppy and tended to bow under load. The elevator wire supports were shrinked to prevent rattling and possible RF interference.
Batteries relocated as per photo....great location.
Narrow shelf fitted for rearward location of Rx.
Spektrum Data Logger temporarily fitted for RF evaluation(great item...beg or borrow...I bought one as I think they really sort out RF problems and may save an aeroplane)
Added a spinner which meant bog standard prop bolt supplied by Fuji needed drilling for spinner bolt.
With a good transmitter no problem to add the necessary mixes...aileron differential and rudder/aileron mix otherwise the Seagull skids around the turns.
Added decalage to top wing as per photo. Guessed the addition but worked out OK....may need a fraction more.
Ignition unit was placed in the engine box.
Not sure of final weight as I do not have accurate scales.
Not a great performer compared to previous Saito 125 engine fitted....hence large hole in cowl....but happy with the normal scale like bipe performance as opposed to Bipe Ultimate performance.
Note: All items were from previous projects so were not specifically matched with any particular outcome in mind. However I am happy with this result.
I would be interested in reading of other members attempts in installing gasoline engines into 90-120 size aeroplanes.At the moment there are few models suitable due to problems matching weight and power and space but I think (hope) that will change in the near future.