Kelly Posted July 7, 2009 Author Share Posted July 7, 2009 Seagull website takes a while to load , Any luck finding the Super air Stephen ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Mullins Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 I would suggest not going on the Seagull Site, my firefox has labeled it as a 'attack site' Basically meaning it gives you viruses! That harvard looks nice though :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly Posted July 7, 2009 Author Share Posted July 7, 2009 Not had any problems with the site so far ? Should be OK with a good virus checker, I use F- secure Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Grigg Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 No luck Kelvin and its pouring with rain tonight,so no searching although Ive pretty well exhausted everywhere except the rape seed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Grigg Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 Look what the Postman put through my letter box this morning,(well my open office door and he was a courier but its not the same is it)The Seagull40,busy tonight then Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly Posted July 8, 2009 Author Share Posted July 8, 2009 Nice one Stephen My PC crashed last night,not had chance to fix it ,may not be posting for a few days( this post done on my sons PC) If I do not reply to any posts this is the reason why. Look forward to reading about your first flight . Kelvin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Clarkson Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 Oooohhh Stephen, that looks nice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Grigg Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 I hope it lasts as long as my Boomerang and not as short as my lost Super Air Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamish Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 Sorry Stephen totally off subject and will upset mods but Im going for three posts in a row Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Grigg Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 And so you should Hamish.By the time I arrived home after hatching a new plan in the look for Super Air saga I didnt get very much donr on the Seagull 40.Unpacked everything and started on the wing servos.They dont put string in the wings to pull the servo cables through and I had difficulty getting the nut on the end of my string to go through.Looks like the under carriage mount gets in the way a bit, so ill find a smaller string and nut and try tomorrow night Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ntsmith Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 what is the covering type. is it better than the black horse low winger? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Marsh Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 No, It's the same burst covering. I've got the Seagull 40. A great flyer, but has a couple holes (patches) in the wings now. Fuz is ok. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Sharp Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 Hey guys, Ive been looking into buying one of these, i am converting to IC from electric, I am wanting a nicer looking model than a boxey trainer. Ive had a lot of experience flying a .40 size electric wing tiger and many, many hours flying assorted models on Phoenix rc. The point im getting to is how different are these low winger's to high wingers? Any input would be greatly appreciated Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Banner Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 You will be fine, go for it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Marsh Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 I've got one, as with all Seagull models, they fly brilliant. Main gripe is the covering is damaged easily, but looks nice though. Mine is years old, but not flown it for a while. That reminds me... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john stones 1 - Moderator Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 Once you're past the learning stage Ryan, most would say these are easier to fly than your trainer. Go on treat yourself John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Sharp Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 Many thanks Jack, Paul and John, I think i just might go for it....... no point crying over split balsa. Cheers guys Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.. Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 Yes I agree with the above, I think you will find the low wing plane much more of a "point & shoot" piece of kit. One novice at the club was getting a bit frustrated trying basic aerobatics on a high wing trainer finding all the moves a bit untidy, this is of course because the high wing and dihedral of the plane is at its happiest the rite way up. A switch to a borrowed low wing plane soon had his debit card in operation. As John says , go for it & treat yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingKade Posted September 17, 2015 Share Posted September 17, 2015 I agree too, was becoming a bit miffed with the old high wing and my progression, until i had a go on a low wing sport! It was sooo much better and easier to fly! Same! Cards out, internet on, happy browsing!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Beaton 1 Posted September 21, 2015 Share Posted September 21, 2015 I'm about half way through building this kit. the quality of this kit has been so bad its gotten to the point of being un buildable. Mis matched,wings,missing parts ,broken bulk heads in fuselage(I've got photographic proof of all of this btw). The instructions and specifications are out of date and should be updated accordingly.Im going to contact the model shop where i bought it from and try for a full replacement. i know its only a cheap kit and i shouldn't expect rolls royce quality but its a different matter when the kit can't be assembled due to poor quality control/manufacturing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.. Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 Posted by Ross Beaton 1 on 21/09/2015 21:48:09: I'm about half way through building this kit. the quality of this kit has been so bad its gotten to the point of being un buildable. Mis matched,wings,missing parts ,broken bulk heads in fuselage(I've got photographic proof of all of this btw). The instructions and specifications are out of date and should be updated accordingly.Im going to contact the model shop where i bought it from and try for a full replacement. i know its only a cheap kit and i shouldn't expect rolls royce quality but its a different matter when the kit can't be assembled due to poor quality control/manufacturing. That's disappointing Ross , Yes I would definitely take it back to the shop and let them have a look. The Kyosho Calmato 40 comes well recommended , its a bit more money but its a great flyer and goes together well. Steve Web have them here Calmato Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Hopkin Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 I would second the vote for the Calmato, great plane, a pleasure to fly, can be flown very slowly or like you stole it, stable and predictable flight envelope on full rates its very aerobatic too + plus doesn't look like a trainer at all and will happily take a 4S 5000 Lipo which gives mine about 9 to 10 mins flight time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john stones 1 - Moderator Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 Seen a lot of Seagull 40's and built a few for other people, not come across a bad one yet. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.. Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 Posted by john stones 1 on 22/09/2015 14:05:01: Seen a lot of Seagull 40's and built a few for other people, not come across a bad one yet. John Yes it doesn't sound like the normal Seagull quality John. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Beaton 1 Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 Posted by Justin K. on 22/09/2015 13:41:50: Posted by Ross Beaton 1 on 21/09/2015 21:48:09: I'm about half way through building this kit. the quality of this kit has been so bad its gotten to the point of being un buildable. Mis matched,wings,missing parts ,broken bulk heads in fuselage(I've got photographic proof of all of this btw). The instructions and specifications are out of date and should be updated accordingly.Im going to contact the model shop where i bought it from and try for a full replacement. i know its only a cheap kit and i shouldn't expect rolls royce quality but its a different matter when the kit can't be assembled due to poor quality control/manufacturing. That's disappointing Ross , Yes I would definitely take it back to the shop and let them have a look. The Kyosho Calmato 40 comes well recommended , its a bit more money but its a great flyer and goes together well. Steve Web have them here Calmato it was bought on the internet i called the shop today they've asked vme to email them some pictures of the broken bulkheads wings etc. from what i was told on the phone its sounding like a replacement will be sent. Happy days. :-D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.