Seagull Turbo Raven

[George Markey 1]

Having read David's review of this plane in the July edition and watched the video, I really want to build one of these. However, further research has raised some nagging doubts which I would like to air on the forum and get some other enlightened opinions on these worries.

Firstly, the flying weight as given in the Perkins web site is 6.4lbs (2.9Kgs) where as David's review model came out at 8.25 lbs. (3.7Kgs.). These weights result in wing loadings of 25 ozs/sq.ft. and 32 ozs./sq.ft., the former being nicely in the comfort zone for forgiving flight performance, the latter,for me anyway, being in the red zone for a plane of this size. Mitigating against this is the landing in the video which looks smooth and stable without being hair- raisingly fast.

Secondly, there are two reviews on site which chronicle a series of disasters with this plane, resulting in a very low rateing. In both cases, however, the problems encountered seem to be related to a rearward CG, and in one case also to instaling a 4S electric system as recommended in the manual, resulting in a woefully underpowered plane. Both these problems are covered in David's review. Can we then assume that had both these unlucky people read David's review before flying their planes and taken corrective action, the result would have been very different? I look forward to your comments.

[Stephen Grigg]

Yes I was tempted with this model but bought thr Nemesis instead.Love it to take off and fly but have struggled to slow it down on landing.Its fitted with a Thunder Tiger 46 pro and that gives it plenty of power.Ive recently bought the Zlin 50 and it is simpy fantastic to fly.In a misinterpretation with a collegue it crashed,but ive bought another and cant wait ti finish it and fly it.Problems with a new exhaust.

[Tim Mackey]

Hello Stephen...long time not hear much from ya

Are you keeping well??

[Lee Smalley]

Mine has an SC 60 in the nose, as i really did not trust the recommended spec of a 46 to 55 engine to actually be able to fly it, it is actually quite a large airframe so i chose a 60 i had lying around, i have a 5 cell Nimh pack in the tail 2200 mah and the balance point came out slightly forwards of suggested, it does fly fine although it is slightly nose heavy in the dive test, and i do need some right thrust putting in, but other than that shes fine landings are fine you just have to let her slow down as she is a slippery ship, a really great model !!!

but not really for intermediate flyers experienced flyers only in my opinion, i think intermediate flyers will have a tendency to chuck her around like a wot 4 and crawl her in nose high, and i suspect that here is where the problems are arising

Edited By Lee Smalley on 06/06/2011 12:38:06

[David Ashby - Moderator]

I did wonder whether a .90 2/stroke wouldn't go amiss Lee, what do you reckon?

 

 

 

 

[George Markey 1]

Thanks for your input Lee, I think it boils down to accepting that this plane needs a positive approach when landing. In these situations I have found that setting up the ailerons to act as flaperons and reflexing them up on the landing approach helps. This does help to slow the plane down but mainly gives it a more nose down attitude which keeps the approach more positive. I usually set this at 30% of the aileron rated movement.

Such an approach can ,of course, result in the odd heavy landing, which can be hard on the gear. Have you, Lee or David, experienced any signs of the under-carriage weakness

which has been experienced in some A.R.T.F.S.

David, what improvement would you be looking for by going to a .90 2/stroke. Would this also add more weight? ( I'm not really familiar with modern I/C engines . Since coming back to the hobby some ten years ago, i have been exclusive electric). Off now to watch the video again!

 

[Lee Smalley]

yeah David if i were to purchase her again i would be sticking a .90 in 60 is ok but to be honest it’s the minimum i would put in a hot 60 would be good but an SC or ASP would be (and is) a bit disappointing,

only problem would be c of g, mine is nose heavy with a 60 in !!!

i have not felt the need for flaps or any such like you need to slow her down in the circuit but then keep some power on, on the approach and the undercarriage is more than strong enough,

for some time we have had models made for us that are not the easiest of things to fly, Mew gull and raven are cases in point, they have the ability to catch you out, but because they are ready built they can be purchased by anyone, this results in the person purchasing not always having the ability or experience to fly her, we see them at the patch and we know the models are not going to last very long.... and they don't

the Raven is so groovy to fly arrow like, rolls like the devil on low rates!! point rolls are great and only the u/C drags a bit on K/E

lovely aircraft that looks stunning in the air !!!

[George Markey 1]

O.K. I'm sold, The order is going in. Many thanks to you all.

[David Ashby - Moderator]

George - I was thinking aloud really based on the fact that a good modern .90 isn't much bigger/heavier than a .60 and it's a strong model that could carry the bigger engine. The u/c has been fine and I've dumped the model down a few times during test flights. The first landing was the worst when she stalled in from about 2ft as I'd let her slow down too much but no damage done. As you can see from the video, we're fortunate in having a good field with no obstructions so there's plenty of space and time to settle in for landing.

 

It's always down to where you draw the distinction and what actually constitutes an intermediate pilot and that an experienced pilot I guess.

 

 

 

 

Edited By David Ashby - RCME Administrator on 06/06/2011 18:34:43

[aerts michel]

Hi,

 

Here I am thanks for the link David, .. me the bad pilot .

here is some inspiration for those of you who like me who like to distinguish top and bottom of the plane during flights.. especially if you fly on some grey days. I added this after some front repairs.

 

 

.. and yes I hope to make some more flights with it. Meanwhile I received my july issue and have read the great review of the Raven. My own electric setup is a bit more powerfull as I run 1150 Watts!

 

Hope not to crash it too soon now , but I only have experience with only 50 different models going from various Pitts, mustang and... models to a decent 3m25 Douglas DC-3 - 15 kilos with flaps, retracts, etc...

 

I can hear some say "there is no bad plane.. just bad pilots".

 

More seriously if you have some questions about the plane or the setup , I will be glad to answer.

 

best regards to everybody

 

Michel

 

PS : by the way I have no problems landing this plane for the 2 flights I have done. It just arrives fast but is not difficult to control (with CG at 110 mmm)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited By aerts michel on 06/06/2011 19:34:14

Edited By aerts michel on 06/06/2011 19:34:45

Edited By aerts michel on 06/06/2011 19:35:23

[aerts michel]

Here is another modification I have done: the removable hatch is now magnets in place of the 2 screws. I find it easier so.

[David Ashby - Moderator]

Sounds like you're qualified enough Aerts and we all go ploughing every

now and then 

 

I like the Oracle decals, you made these yourself? Pity Seagull didn't/couldn't do this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited By David Ashby - RCME Administrator on 06/06/2011 20:15:57

[Lee Smalley]

There is no excuse for seagull if they have put an incorrect c of g in but what does make me sigh is when challenging aircraft get bad reputations because there are lots of crashes. I think some people have the opinion that the manufacture should design them all to fly like a wot 4, I would hate that I love the challenge ! I will move the c of g back and let you know how far back I get it

[George Markey 1]

The set-up I anticipate puting in my plane (when I get it ) Is a Turnigy C50-55, 400 KV. motor, a Turnigy Plush 80 amp ESC which comes with a switching bec of 3amp-5volts and a 6S 4000mah battery. I will prop. this to draw approx. 50amps. which will give a tad over 1Kw at full throttle, similar to Aerts set-up. I used this very successfully in a Seb Art

Angel 50 for three years untill it decided to go free flight and find the hard spot for a one point landing amidst many acres of grass! Lee, your experiments with moving the CG back will be extremely interesting since everyone seems to be flying with a more forward CG than that specified by Seagull. I look forward to your feed-back.

Love your magnets Aerts. This is a must for me as all my screws end up in a black hole in the grass!

Many thanks for the positive feed back on the strength of the undercart chaps. This is very reassuring as I have had some really wearysome experiences with Tender Undercart Syndrome in ARTFs in the past.

[Kiwi 1]

Good afternoon fellow Raven owners. I have managed to lose the instruction manual. Could someone please be so kind as to send me the throws on the various control surfaces. Thanks very much. Alan

[George Markey 1]

Hi Kiwi 1,

Sorry I can't help you as I chickened out and did not, in the end, buy this lovely plane. My club's grass patch is just too short for comfortably greasing in fast, low drag planes like the Raven. However, I'm sure one of the other guys from this thread will oblige.

Hopefully you have read David's review in the July issue of RCM&E and noted his comments on the CG ie this should be no further back than 135mm from the leading edge, not 145mm. as in the manual !

Best of luck with your plane .

George.

[Kiwi 1]

Hi George thanks for stopping by so to speak. I'm a bit worried about this too so I'm going to fly this baby down in Hastings to start with to get a feel for how much space she uses on landing and was also thinking of setting up flaperons and seeing if it makes a difference, especially on those dead calm days. If all goes according to plan the WOT 4 will be retired and this little red racer will get me through my B test. Just hope I can get her in under 82 dBs. I have the review so COG concerns duly noted.
Regards Alan

Edited By Kiwi 1 on 31/10/2011 19:01:02

[Lee Smalley]

i can dig out the instructions for her if you want kiwi but manual should be available online at the seagull website mate set more rudder in but leave all the rest as per manual

[Kiwi 1]

Thanks Lee. I spent all Sunday searching the web. No luck. Would really appreciate it if you could look them up or even just measure your thows. Absolutely no great rush.

 

Thanks Alan

[David Ashby - Moderator]

I've just measured the throws I'm currently using with my model.....

 

Rudder - 30mm each way

Elevator - 18mm each way with 20% expo

Ailerons - 13mm each way with 20% expo

 

 

 

[Kiwi 1]

Thanks David et al, greatly appreciated....Regards Alan

 

[David Ashby - Moderator]

Anyone still flying and enjoying their Raven?

I'm still flying mine, still love the model.

[Paul Marsh]

I've got one. Love the colour scheme. Had it almost a year. Mine's got a Magnum 50 two stroke in it, as a four stroke wouldn't sound right - for a change a two stroke is more scale, both in sound and speed.

[Kiwi 1]

Hi David, my Raven last flew on her maiden flight under the care of the legendary Colin Hammond in late March. It flew beautifully on a 61 SC engine. Since then it has pretty much rained every weekend prior to the HMFC May fly-in where the Raven made her next appearance. I ran her up but never flew. Will let you know how it goes in the future, hopefully this month. Regards Alan.

[Andrew Pirie]

Hi,

Looking for some advice with my turbo raven. I find it almost inpossible to taxi it out to the runway without the nose wanting to drop and dig into the grass. Any ideas on how i can fix this issue?

Apart from that its a great flyer but does have a few things to watch out for like stalling with a full up elevator input and yes it does need a good bit of speed on the approach.

Great looking model