Jump to content

Seagull Boomerang or Arising Star - any difference at all?


Jonathan M
 Share

Recommended Posts

When I joined the BMFA they sent me a very useful booklet 'A Flying Start' I found it very informative and knowing very little about the practicalities of flying I realised that it had obviously been written by someone who knew what they were talking about.

No surprise there after all it is the BMFA.

On page 44

The Effect of Wind on the Flight

There is probably more nonsense talked and written on this subject than any other connected with the practical side of flying! In reality, the matter is very simple - it is just that so many people find it hard to accept.

....

You will often hear people say their aircraft tends to climb when turning into wind and dive when turning downwind. What is really happening, of course, is that they are subconsciously trying to compensate for the apparent variation in speed and themselves causing the aircraft to climb and dive.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted by Denis Watkins on 17/07/2020 21:49:28:
Posted by Denis Watkins on 17/07/2020 16:12:52:

Poor newbies reading this

Repeat, total confusion now for novice flyers

No confusion at all because I read the book and know it is all nonsense after all the BMFA say it is nonsense.

Apart from that for the novice it is all academic. The novice wants to and has to learn the practical side of flying.

When I started flying at first when I turned into wind the plane climbed. Having read the book I knew it was me causing the plane to climb so to compensate I fed in a bit of down elevator. Which worked a treat.

So simple a novice can understand and once instructed to do this they quickly get the feel.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very good point Wasa.

In the Boomerang instructions there is no indication of any down- or side-thrust, although from some rough checks on the fuselage itself it appears that the bulkhead itself seems angled slightly for both? Initial flight tests will obviously quickly reveal any fine-adjustment needed, my aim being to get as close to neutral a pitching and rolling response when throttle is briefly blipped open then closed again. It won't be perfect as its only a semi-symmetrical wing section rather than the symmetrical section of a pure performance model, but should be close enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted by EarlyBird on 17/07/2020 22:07:06:

When I joined the BMFA they sent me a very useful booklet 'A Flying Start' I found it very informative and knowing very little about the practicalities of flying I realised that it had obviously been written by someone who knew what they were talking about.

No surprise there after all it is the BMFA.

On page 44

The Effect of Wind on the Flight

There is probably more nonsense talked and written on this subject than any other connected with the practical side of flying! In reality, the matter is very simple - it is just that so many people find it hard to accept.

....

You will often hear people say their aircraft tends to climb when turning into wind and dive when turning downwind. What is really happening, of course, is that they are subconsciously trying to compensate for the apparent variation in speed and themselves causing the aircraft to climb and dive.

Steve

Diving downwind ? Never heard it, why would it dive downwind, goes quicker over the ground, down elevator would increase the speed, if you're subconsciously compensating you'd be pulling up, up wind ? why would you hold UP to compensate ? you'd need down. Gibberish.

The trainee is just that, a trainee, they ain't got the coordination yet, hence, some trainees, flat bottom, blowing, It balloons, It is a fact. Get a Boomerang.

BMFA says take off into wind, there's a crosswind, do you aim at the lads in the pits or deal with the crosswind, me I'd Consciously deal with the crosswind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JS

I absolutely agree I have never experienced 'diving down wind' and therefore never had to knowingly compensate. Turning upwind, at first, this did happen to me and every novice I have watched at the early stage of learning. I did notice that the stronger the wind the more pronounced and to some scary the ballooning up became.

BMFA say when turning into wind 'subconsciously trying to compensate' which I take to mean that up elevator is being applied not as a correction but instinctively. Yes I totally agree with you to knowingly compensate down is required and that is what I did. When turning into wind as the plane started to rise I knowingly and intentionally applied down. What intrigues me is that non of my planes balloon up now. Do any of yours? I assume that is because I, and everyone else, instinctively compensate without thinking about it. After all that is the way to fly, watch the plane and move the thumbs as required to make the plane go where we want it to. I have found the more stick time I have the less thinking I have to do. How did that happen?

Taking off into wind. I have a bee in my bonnet about that one as well. As it happens I totally agree with you, as does my instructor, 'Consciously deal with the crosswind'. Take off and land up the strip is what he teaches. At the early stage of my learning I pointed out that others always take off and land into wind. I was told 'but you can not always do that so you have to learn to deal with the wind'. Cross wind landings I love them. Land down the centre line with the plane flying crabwise takes more skill. What really gives me a buzz is flying with 'experts' who take off and land into wind always. Especially when one starts coaching me on the flight line. That used to be a huge distraction and annoyance. Now I just ignore the advice land down the strip and bask in the warm glow inside which comes from knowing that a novice has just demonstrated how it should be done to an 'expert'. You could have been my Instructor John what you say is music to my ears.

Flying is fun I love it.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Maidened the Boomerang today. Great trainer, nice and heavy to punch through the air at our exposed flying-field! (Weighs almost 6.5lbs, so that's a loading of about 24lbs/sq ft.) Needed some tail-weight (60g = 2% of AUW) to slow the landings, but otherwise well balanced from the outset. Mounted the engine with a tad of both down- and right-thrust which proved just right, had it doing very nice inverted without too much forward pressure on the stick, smooth rolls, passable stall-turns (despite the small rudder and dihedral) and spins one way (so far) on just rudder. Cruises around perfectly on 40% throttle with the OS 46, full revs don't give unlimited vertical but more than enough for every thing else.

Does not balloon when turning into wind but turns definitely need some rudder input to stop the tail dragging around, so I'll add some CAR and put it on a switch for raw-beginners.

Here's a club-mate testing the buddy-box setup for me:

20200824_141143_003.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
On 14/07/2020 at 20:04, David Davis said:

The Boomerang is my favourite ARTF trainer. It can be flown in a stiff breeze without ballooning when turning into wind. There are lots of beginners in my club and I do a fair bit of instructing. I've just maidened a Boomerang this afternoon. It was powered by an old Webra 40 fitted with an MDS silencer. It was alright but I think I'll fit my Enya 50. I've flown that combination in the past very successfully. Which engine will you be using?

Hi David,  although I've been flying since 1986,  I've always liked to have a trainer in my Hangar.  I've been looking at the Seagull Boomerang and in your honest opinion do you think an OS 52 Surpass fourstroke would be adequate power for this plane as I have a brand new one in its box looking for a home.   Kind regards Aidan.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, aidan mcatamney said:

Hi David,  although I've been flying since 1986,  I've always liked to have a trainer in my Hangar.  I've been looking at the Seagull Boomerang and in your honest opinion do you think an OS 52 Surpass fourstroke would be adequate power for this plane as I have a brand new one in its box looking for a home.   Kind regards Aidan.  

 

I've seen one fly on an OS48 Surpass so your 52 should be fine.

 

I have fitted a two-stroke to my model, currently a Thunder Tiger 46 PRO, simply because I don't mind losing one of those in the event of a beginner planting it! To have to repair one of my beloved fourstrokes would be heartbreaking!

Boomerang.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 09/10/2021 at 04:26, David Davis said:

 

I've seen one fly on an OS48 Surpass so your 52 should be fine.

 

I have fitted a two-stroke to my model, currently a Thunder Tiger 46 PRO, simply because I don't mind losing one of those in the event of a beginner planting it! To have to repair one of my beloved fourstrokes would be heartbreaking!

Boomerang.jpg

Many thanks David, I havnt yet ordered the Boomerang, but will soon.  I'm going flying tomorrow to the field and I'm taking my Seagull Jumper 25 trainer which hasn't been flown for over a year now.  Its a smaller version of the Boomerang and I fly it with a very nice and reliable Saito 40 fourstroke.   The weather tomorrow for here is calm winds, so looking forward to flying this plane.   Kind regards , Aidan.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aidan, if you're getting the ARTF Boomerang, then take care to seal/strengthen with finishing epoxy etc whole interior of fuselage from servo tray forwards. Otherwise a very heavy landing will make a right mess of the flimsy liteply keyed joints etc, which are then a nightmare to repair.

 

Mine flies well, if a little fast (now that it's even heavier still post repairs), on an old OS46FX.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Jonathan M said:

Aidan, if you're getting the ARTF Boomerang, then take care to seal/strengthen with finishing epoxy etc whole interior of fuselage from servo tray forwards. Otherwise a very heavy landing will make a right mess of the flimsy liteply keyed joints etc, which are then a nightmare to repair.

 

Mine flies well, if a little fast (now that it's even heavier still post repairs), on an old OS46FX.

Many thanks Johnathan for that good advice.  When I receive the Boomerang ARTF, I will thin down some epoxy and seal the whole inside of the fuse with an epoxy brush from the servo tray to the firewall.   I had planned to use a brand new OS 52 fourstroke on this plane, but now I'm wondering if I should use a Saito 62 instead because of the extra weight of the epoxy?.   What do you think Johnathan?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One doesn't want to make an already heavy-type model too heavy - and in any event I also added some lead to the tail to bring the CG right back to a more neutral position with my 46 - but I don't think the epoxy will really add that much to the overall figure.

 

What I was however thinking before is that the OS 52 four stroke might be a little on the light side in terms of power for this model?  I'm not one for over-powering anything, but if one applies the rough rule of thumb that a FS is equivalent to a TS of 2/3rds the capacity, then the OS 52 would be equivalent to a 35 or 40 at the most, whereas the Saito 62 might equate to a 40 or 46?

 

Having said that, the sales pitch does recommend a 52 four stroke, so the OS might be enough?  Depends what you're looking for in terms of flying style.  If there's a significant weight difference between it and the Saito, then maybe the OS is the way to go.  You can always easily retrofit the Saito instead later.

 

Sorry to pose more questions than answers!

 

Jon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Jonathan M said:

One doesn't want to make an already heavy-type model too heavy - and in any event I also added some lead to the tail to bring the CG right back to a more neutral position with my 46 - but I don't think the epoxy will really add that much to the overall figure.

 

What I was however thinking before is that the OS 52 four stroke might be a little on the light side in terms of power for this model?  I'm not one for over-powering anything, but if one applies the rough rule of thumb that a FS is equivalent to a TS of 2/3rds the capacity, then the OS 52 would be equivalent to a 35 or 40 at the most, whereas the Saito 62 might equate to a 40 or 46?

 

Having said that, the sales pitch does recommend a 52 four stroke, so the OS might be enough?  Depends what you're looking for in terms of flying style.  If there's a significant weight difference between it and the Saito, then maybe the OS is the way to go.  You can always easily retrofit the Saito instead later.

 

Sorry to pose more questions than answers!

 

Jon

Many thanks Jon, when I get the Boomerang I might go with the Saito 62, it's my favourite engine and I have 3 of them and never let me down.   I think you are right about the OS 52 fourstroke when you say it could be underpowered.  Yes I'm sure it could fly the Boomerang, but I would probably have to keep it at full throttle most of the time and it would also probably need a good long takeoff run to get off the ground.  Using the Saito 62, I could probably fly the Boomerang comfortably at half throttle and hopefully the cg will be OK without having to add too much lead weight to the plane to balance.  I might look around at a later date for a more suitable plane for the OS 52 Surpass.     Regards,  Aidan

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, aidan mcatamney said:

Many thanks Jon, when I get the Boomerang I might go with the Saito 62, it's my favourite engine and I have 3 of them and never let me down.   I think you are right about the OS 52 fourstroke when you say it could be underpowered.  Yes I'm sure it could fly the Boomerang, but I would probably have to keep it at full throttle most of the time and it would also probably need a good long takeoff run to get off the ground.  Using the Saito 62, I could probably fly the Boomerang comfortably at half throttle and hopefully the cg will be OK without having to add too much lead weight to the plane to balance.  I might look around at a later date for a more suitable plane for the OS 52 Surpass.     Regards,  Aidan

 

20211015_155035.jpg

20211015_134016.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 15/07/2020 at 21:12, Jonathan M said:

Thank you Robin for your very clear explanation.

Having yesterday been gifted the very worn Boomerang for the club (which really needs a good winter overhaul first), today I drove down to my LMS (50mins) and picked up a brand new one for myself, plus a set of 2.5" wheels to cope better with our patch than the stock 2" ones. Back home, I then ran up the OS 46FX which goes beautifully! Already got a set of standard servos, etc, so hope to put it all together tomorrow, ready to fly by the weekend!

All I need (for trainees) is a suitable but inexpensive used TX for use as a buddy-box on a lead - anyone got one to sell just PM me please.

Cheers

Jon laugh

Hi Johnathan, do you still fly your Boomerang with the OS 46fx?   I've got a new Boomerang coming next week and I had thought about using an os 52 foustroke.  But I'm having second thoughts as it may be underpowered,  so I have a spare OS 46ax and an OS 46fx sitting around doing nothing.  If I remember correctly, the OS 46fx ran very nicely in last plane I had it in over 3 years ago.  Are you happy with your Boomerang powered with the OS 46fx?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aidan, the 46FX is perfect for my ARTF Boomerang, even though it's heavier now at 6.75lbs (after crash repairs) with a wing-loading of 24lbs/sqft.  So to help slow it for landings I've swapped the 11x6 for an 11x5 prop.  It also needed a fair amount of tail-weight to get the CG back to a sufficiently neutral position for inverted flight etc.

 

I know the sales literature suggests a 52 four-stroke as an alternative to a 40-46 two-stroke, but I'd imagine this to be quite underpowered by comparison.

 

Is the one you've ordered a kit or an ARTF?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Jonathan M said:

Aidan, the 46FX is perfect for my ARTF Boomerang, even though it's heavier now at 6.75lbs (after crash repairs) with a wing-loading of 24lbs/sqft.  So to help slow it for landings I've swapped the 11x6 for an 11x5 prop.  It also needed a fair amount of tail-weight to get the CG back to a sufficiently neutral position for inverted flight etc.

 

I know the sales literature suggests a 52 four-stroke as an alternative to a 40-46 two-stroke, but I'd imagine this to be quite underpowered by comparison.

 

Is the one you've ordered a kit or an ARTF?

 

 

It's the artf Boomerang Johnathan.  The mark 2 version that can be tryicle or taildragger.  Yes I thought it would be a bit underpowered with my 52 fourstroke taking off from a grass field.  I could use my spare Saito 62 that I know would fly it gloriously, but I would rather keep that engine for something else.  I also have an OS 46ax mk2 which has only 5 flights on it so near enough brand new that I bought a year ago so I could use that also.  The last plane I used my 46fx on was a calmato sports, but I changed that out for 55ax.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
On 15/07/2020 at 21:12, Jonathan M said:

Thank you Robin for your very clear explanation.

Having yesterday been gifted the very worn Boomerang for the club (which really needs a good winter overhaul first), today I drove down to my LMS (50mins) and picked up a brand new one for myself, plus a set of 2.5" wheels to cope better with our patch than the stock 2" ones. Back home, I then ran up the OS 46FX which goes beautifully! Already got a set of standard servos, etc, so hope to put it all together tomorrow, ready to fly by the weekend!

All I need (for trainees) is a suitable but inexpensive used TX for use as a buddy-box on a lead - anyone got one to sell just PM me please.

Cheers

Jon laugh

Hi Jonathan, can I ask you what size of prop you used on your 46fx?  11x5 or 11x6?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...