Seagull mew gull torque rod problems

Following on from a chat room chat about the design of this models under cart mount and spring system, The problem with this design is, the torque rods a large diam, and tooooooo short, A torque rod system works well with length, the shortness of this version makes it too rigid, resulting with a hard landing, the entire thing being ripped out, Then there is the spat mount, 2blocks, just glued to the block set into the wing, Good knock, and this is ripped off, taking the wing mount with it, My proposal is to remove the bottom covering in the mount area, install a longer torque block, with a rear brace, Or maybe, just fit a rear beam, and have a rear brace, ideas please?

If the pants are fixed, then the piano wire must allow the wheel to move freely within them; the undercarriage leg flexing back and forth.

So, if you make the torque rod more flexible, there will be too much movement and the fixed pants will be knocked off.

The pants will have to be fixed, such that they move with the undercarriage leg as it flexes... which is probably a more sensible arrangement, anyway.

Yes, you might as well "bite the bullet" and do a proper fix, even though it means stripping some covering. The only alternative I can think of is to get some sprung legs. They might provide enough shock absorption to permit the existing stiff arrangement.

It's fitted with sprung Oleos, The kit came with them, and after fully rebuilding them, they now actually work, I am now going along the idea of a rear brace, and leave the torque rod alone, then, the oleo will take the strain, and the rear brace will stop the rearward bend, This way, the torque rod arrangement will be redundant, As for the spat, Make the holes into slots, lightly nip up the screws, and then, maybe, the spats if provoked, will remove theirselves from the structure, with maybe only film damage, Wad ya fink???? I am, by the way, while the films off, fitting flaps, Anything I can do to lesson the load on the under art will help me thinks,

Lots of talk previuosly about thre poor design of the under carriage which is a shame

Over on RCME, yes, i contributed to that , along with all the other faults i had forgotten about on this thing,

I'll have to get out my Mew Gull to have a closer look but if I remember correctly, the model under test didnt survive the first flying session. I do sometimes wonder if the 'experts' are all they are cracked up to be. I read some of their comments and wonder if their modelling experience extends beyond the armchair. Certainly any engineering aspect to a model seems way beyond most of the reviewing contributors. In fact, when I see some of the retracting and oleo legs that are for sale commercially, I wouldn;t give them house room. Ok I suppose if one does not have access to any metal cutting machinery, but if one has even the simplest lathe, a much better job could be achieved at home. Much the same with hardware supplied in ARTF or kit models. It is so easy to make control horns from say aluminium extrusions that I wouldn't consider using the flimsy plastic efforts supplied. Sorry I'm rambling....... but I do understand AC's desire to make a better job of the Mew Gull undercart.

I contacted perkins, who bring them in, and they said its fit for purpose, i said its not, do you want a breakdown from an engineer of the intis faults, they actually hung up on me, that was ages ago, ive emailed seagull, at the factory, no response, ive read another review, singing its praises to a high degree, how they actually got even the oleos to work, i know not, so, i thought its not worth my good name to sell it to some poor git, so someday, i will resurrect it, and if i see any at swap meets, with the legs ripped out, i will buy them up cheap, convert them, and flog them on,

Spat goes over the 2 blocks, the holes you see line up for screws, i was going to go the long torqe rod route, but i fear the flexing rearward would catch the spat, to fix the spat to the oleo would need a total redesign of everything, i favour the rear brace, but it may have to go external through the spat rear, better that, than just one long flight

Alan think I'd be tempted to see open the bottom of the wing up and see if I could get some slotted ramin block with ply doublers on the ribs across a few more ribs than it looks to be at present. Then re make the piano wire legs but longer where it lays in the wing. With the olios I carnt see the legs bending and wrecking the spats being an issue. More of an issue of the lot getting ripped out the ribs

My fear with that is that it will make the wheels catch the spats, and rip them out, i still am favouring the brace from the rear routine, its a way off its turn, but soon, it will have to be done

Here's hoping that this works

Great shot Gary looks like they go from the fuselage, to the aileron, should not be too hard to do

I think the reason of not modifying during reviews is that the review is an honest interpretation of what you get from the manufacturer,Graham Ashby was caught out by his model when it unexpectedly tip stalled on its maiden flight,It seems for some reason on this model Seagull have chosen to ignore all comments about the under carriage and like happened to alan have just put the phone down,Im a fan of Seagull and this is the only model thats received serious criticism as far as Im humbly aware
When i started putting together there 63" Sparrowhawk I was warned the under carriage just wouldn't fit but it was no problem at all.