RCM&E July 2011 issue

[Dave Lawson 1]

Just opened the RF-4 plan to see that it has page1 of 2 printed on both sides, ie: no wing ??

Also no F2 section would that be on the missing page ??

 

Dave

[David McEwan]

HI

 

I have just got my latest issue and i too love the moody front cover, i have just looked at the plans supplied with the issue and have found the same as Dave no wing section i have looked and can not see if this is to come out in the next issue or not ?

 

Can you shed any light on this ?

 

David

[Slopetrashuk]

So - Having set a new record in F5D and told the mag about it and sent in a nice piccy, you might have though that the actual time would be included no? Anybody know what it is?

 

Oh and I see you wimped out and put a leccy motor in the Turbo Raven David. I'll agree that this particular Seagull kit is built to a very high standard but that is not the case for some models in the range. Also why go to the trouble of producing a scale model and then not finish it off in the sale colour scheme? The real turboraven had a black logo and 'oracle' emblazoned across the underside of the wing. Its like that Seagull Yak i'm currently building. Scale colour scheme, rivets and panel lines but only two wheels!

 

Here's the moment the Turbo Raven met its end. Hope yours doesn't do this Dave:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJWjbpA_zIc

 

Andy

 

[David Ashby - Moderator]

LOL, wimped out! Can you imagine the sound of a gastly four-stroke! We've just taken some video of it actually and as you'll see, the sound is just right.

 

There are some tail dragger Yak 52s around but, I agree, a trike would have been better.

 

[Ian Blakey]

Is there a problem with the RF4 plan in the July issue - I seem to have two copies of the fuselage and no wings - anyone got the reverse problem and would like to swap!

[David Ashby - Moderator]

Ian, yes, please see here.

 

Andy, I nearly forgot, your boy's going to be flying your jet while you're at work after what you said about him

 

[Alex Whittaker]

Don't know if I'm allowed any feedback, but I must say that Andy's cover photograph is stunningly good. However, for my money the shot of his lad on page 66 is an even more satisfying image, although I accept perhaps not quite as suitable as a cover shot. The key point is that when a magazine has image quality like this in depth to spare, you have to feel sorry for the others.

Alex

 

PS

Andy remains a Mank.

[Slopetrashuk]

Kind words indeed Alex.

If only you weren't a scouser I might be tempted to say thank you. However - As my dear old dad (the Mank) would most likely extrapolate any references to his first born son from whatever last Will and testament he may be planning to leave if he even knew I was giving you the time to reply on a forum, I will refrain from praise and restrict myself to thumping you only once next time we meet.

 

Andy

 

[Lee Smalley]

I agree with you on the colour scheme Andy but i also have to side with david on the electric thingy, despite the fact David has prob forgot which way round to flick an ic engine, he is right, electric in it would sound as good if not better in the raven, David is also right ( god it sounds as though i actually like him) about the power requirements, i have a sixty in mine and it does not exactly go like the preverbial !

 

 

...wait for it..... wait for it ..... cue Andy!!!

[David Ashby - Moderator]

Posted by Lee Smalley on 03/06/2011 13:19:21:

I agree with you on the colour scheme Andy but i also have to side with david on the electric thingy, despite the fact David has prob forgot which way round to flick an ic engine, he is right, electric in it would sound as good if not better in the raven, David is also right ( god it sounds as though i actually like him) about the power requirements, i have a sixty in mine and it does not exactly go like the preverbial !

 

 

...wait for it..... wait for it ..... cue Andy!!!

 

 

Cheers Lee, I think......

 

Edited By David Ashby - RCME Administrator on 03/06/2011 15:22:00

[Phil 9]

Posted by aerts michel on 30/05/2011 08:39:20:

Hello, I am really curious to read the seagull turbo raven review as I crashed mine on first flight. I think the problem is Cg location mentionned wich seems to me far too much on the back at 145 mm from leading edge.

As with all reviews it says its a fantasic model

[David Ashby - Moderator]

Not all reviews Phil, you've got to start reading them, seriously though, let's try and keep it a bit more informed please.

 

Sorry to learn of your problems though Aerts - as I pointed out in the review, the CG isn't right and needs to come forward, that done it's a fine flying model. At the stated position the model does have a strong risk of catching out the pilot.  Can you describe the circumstances in a bit more depth?

 

 

 

Edited By David Ashby - RCME Administrator on 03/06/2011 15:40:17

[David Ashby - Moderator]

I'll pop a home page piece to confirm this but just to clarify re the RF-4 plan......

 

 

1. The full plan will be reproduced next month alongside the August plan.

 

2. Those who buy the magazine singly or require the plan sooner can get a copy of the plan sent to them by emailling customer services at

 

[email protected]

 

or by calling 0844 848 8822.

 

Please quote your name and address in emails.

 

Thanks and needless to say we're desparately sorry this has occurred.

 

 

Edited By David Ashby - RCME Administrator on 03/06/2011 17:29:50

[aerts michel]

Hi, to answer the question aboutr CG and flying. After take off at mentionned CG (145 mm) the plane flew with low tail and was really sensitive to ailerons. I tried to bring at back , but it was so unctrollable that I had to land in a field . As a result the entire front of the fuze was broken in many parts...untill the wing place.

 

Anyways it took about 10-12 hours to rebuilt and have done 2 flights now with the CG at 105 mm : it is 40 mm difference !!!!!! so centered at 1/3 of the wing. And now it flys straight and safe. So ok it is a good flyer but if you follow instructions you will surely brake it. Do you think it is normal for a manufacturer to make this kind of mistakes? Is ther anything most important than CG.? We are not talking of a minor mistake.

 

I contacted seagulls as well as perkins to mention this problem as I think it must be corrected in the next batchs of production... I didn't get any answers form them.

 

After repair with electric setup and lipos 6S3500 it weights 3.800 grams. This is another point it seems to differ from instructions quoting 2.800 -3.200 grams. I havent't added the wheelpants wich weight a lot too.

 

So finally yes I do like this plane,... but I am sure many people will crash it because unfortunatly not everybody will read your review. And I am not alone to experience this if you read the seagull turbo raven review in the review columns.

 

 

[Phil 9]

Posted by aerts michel on 04/06/2011 07:52:25:

.

 

I contacted seagulls as well as perkins to mention this problem as I think it must be corrected in the next batchs of production... I didn't get any answers form them.

 

 

 

Its not good you have not got an answer. I agree with you this is not a minor issue with the instructions. The CG is fundamental to the use of this product and if following the instructions courses damage then I believe seagull should replace any damaged parts at least and recall any unsold product (untill the error is corrected). An uncontrollable model can be very dangerous

[Mowerman]

Am I alone in finding Nigel Haws' 3 in 1 reviews slightly irritating ?

Pictures mixed in with text in a seemingly random fashion.

I much prefer a review to do one at a time, unless covering models of a similar type.

[Tim Mackey]

Not alone

[Myron Beaumont]

Just had a look at it . After my browse originally to see what interested me yesterday ,I decided not to bother reading it in full .I have partially read it following your comments & can see what you mean

Ah well ,back to aeromodelling today since the weather is turning.I love the article on flaps .Very informative & well written

Edited By Myron Beaumont on 04/06/2011 13:04:24

[Frank Skilbeck]

Stop tormenting me, mine hasn't arrived yet

[birdy]

I find his reviews annoying too. Surely a column is not so you can review things but so you can talk about electric flight? Brian Winch and Whittaker manage not to spend their entire time reviewing so why does he? Other then his look at CE compliance and the christmas present ideas, he had only built and reviews so far this year.

[David Ashby - Moderator]

I've just got some footage of the Seagull Turbo Raven in place taken during the 8th test flight. Just some simple aeros so Graham could keep up using the

camera we have......

 

 

 

 

 

Edited By David Ashby - RCME Administrator on 04/06/2011 18:20:03

[Steve W-O]

Posted by Myron Beaumont on 04/06/2011 13:01:26:

Just had a look at it . After my browse originally to see what interested me yesterday ,I decided not to bother reading it in full ..............................................................

 

 

Have to agree, must admit, didn't read all of it either.

 

I think after last month, it was going to be hard to equal.

 

I also find that if I read the first few sentences of an article/review and it feels like I am reading the phone book, I don't continue.

 

In no way am I saying there is any thing wrong with it, very nice quality to look at. just didn't push the right buttons with me. There is nothing I would want to change in it, it is simply a case of what I feel like reading or not, both in terms of content and writing style..

 

I like the Fournier plan, I bought one a few months ago, but I like this one better, unfortunately by the time the other half arrives I will only have a couple of weeks before I am away from flying and building for six weeks.

 

There is in fact one point, on page19, there are four pictures on the page, then four captions together on the right of the page.

I don't know what a BAC drone, a Swordfish, a Spitfire or a Albatros look like (ok, maybe a spitfire) how do I know what caption goes with what photo?

On page 16 there is a photo with the caption within the photo, pity the others did not have the same, or under/next to the photo.

 

Maybe I am alone in finding this off-putting

 

 

Edited for test

Edited By Steve W-O on 11/09/2011 18:23:14

[David Ashby - Moderator]

Posted by aerts michel on 04/06/2011 07:52:25:

Hi, to answer the question aboutr CG and flying. After take off at mentionned CG (145 mm) the plane flew with low tail and was really sensitive to ailerons. I tried to bring at back , but it was so unctrollable that I had to land in a field . As a result the entire front of the fuze was broken in many parts...untill the wing place.

 

Anyways it took about 10-12 hours to rebuilt and have done 2 flights now with the CG at 105 mm : it is 40 mm difference !!!!!! so centered at 1/3 of the wing. And now it flys straight and safe. So ok it is a good flyer but if you follow instructions you will surely brake it. Do you think it is normal for a manufacturer to make this kind of mistakes? Is ther anything most important than CG.? We are not talking of a minor mistake.

 

I contacted seagulls as well as perkins to mention this problem as I think it must be corrected in the next batchs of production... I didn't get any answers form them.

 

After repair with electric setup and lipos 6S3500 it weights 3.800 grams. This is another point it seems to differ from instructions quoting 2.800 -3.200 grams. I havent't added the wheelpants wich weight a lot too.

 

So finally yes I do like this plane,... but I am sure many people will crash it because unfortunatly not everybody will read your review. And I am not alone to experience this if you read the seagull turbo raven review in the review columns.

 

 

 

 

 

Fair comment of course, sorry to learn of your unhappy tale. It's a Seagull trait though and not the first model they've produced with a silly CG suggestion. I spent some time deliberating bringing forward the CG before the test flight and was glad I did - it just didn't seem right to me.

 

Was yours electric?

 

 

 

Edited By David Ashby - RCME Administrator on 04/06/2011 18:37:12

[Lee Smalley]

Not just a seagull trait is it though, black horse and YT are also culpable it must be different gravity on that side of the world !!!

[aerts michel]

Hi David,

 

This is a great video you posted with the Raven.

 

To answer your question

"Was yours electric?"

 

Yes it is electric. Here is the setup emax 4030/08 with kv 520 - lipos 6s3500 - APC 14X10 prop and esc 60 AMP. I think it is a good match for the plane.

 

I will receive my july issue soon, but in Belgium it always takes a bit longer, so meanwhile Wich is your electric setup? and at wich exact CG do you fly after 8 flights? Also wich is your auw?

 

Mine is now rebuilt and I hope to make lots of nice flights with this plane wich looks terrific.