Another Sub Hunter?

I am musing over what to build next and at the moment the odd Short Seamew looks interesting.

Its one of the planes I actually saw at Farnborough in the mid 50s.
Its concept was sound enough as a lightweight ASW craft able to operate unassisted from the several fairly new 'escort' carriers still on Navy strength. It would be flown by RNVR pilots. 60 were ordered.
The order was intended to be split 50 between Navy ASW1 version and the visually identical MR2 version to be used by RAF Coastal Command. However by the time production actually started defence cuts meant the escort carriers were all disposed of and the RNVR disbanded! The RAF also lost interest in the idea.
To make matters worse the Seamew did not handle well and went though a series of rather odd modifications, none of which cured all the problems so although it went through full sea trials none of the 24 built were ever issued for squadron service and all were scrapped during the 60s.
A poor design in the wrong place at the wrong time so why on earth build it!

Apart from its rarely It does have some useful features. A fixed undercarriage (simple and light) and the land based versions used over size low pressure tyres. In addition on the Navy version the main undercarriage could be jettisoned for ditching so it can be flown scale without it. Ideal for my rough grass field but it would have to loose the scale four blade prop!

Still thinking.

I built one in the 50s KK I think Flew well after I put proper rubber in it. Always tipped on its nose when landing on grass or rough ground.

I mentioned the 'odd' mods the prototype acquired to improve its handling.
As built the prototype had simple surfaces.

First a fixed slat was added at the root of the tail plane.

Was this to solve a rudder 'blanking' issue? Is that a spin recovery chute added under the tail?
Next was a bigger redesign of the tail plane root and a simple fixed slat added at the wing mid point.

An usual arrangement, why the mid point? Smoothing the wing airflow to reduce rudder blanking in a spin?
Fixed slats usually go all along the leading edge (Storch) to delay the stall or just in front of the ailerons (Tiger moth) to maintain aileron control as the rest of the wing stalls.
At 'production' standard the mid span slot extended over the leading edge and the outer edge of the flap was given a triple slot!

It looks like the Seamew had a fundamental control issue. From what i can tell all these mods were instigated on the prototype after series production had started so the mods were limited to what could be simply added or parts just modified.

The Seamew story of "non joined up thinking" was not uncommon in the aircraft industry in the early 50s so Duncan Sandy's 1957 Defence White Paper that completely altered the role and size of the armed forces was almost inevitable.

Still thinking.

Still not absolutely sure whether to proceed on this but the first stage is to prepare a 'fine line' plan from the 3 view.
So from this:-

To this:-

Note this is now in the 'prototype' configuration.
With single pixel width lines it can be readily blown up to the required size and tile printed.
The exact degree of enlargement will be set so that a 10x8.25 four blade prop is to scale. It will be about 66" span.
Flaps probably, but no folding wing!
Battery in the bomb bay?

Looking like you'll do this. I suppose a Gannet will follow LOL

The real problem is if I build it I have no where to store it!
Still preparing drawings takes up no room and it does highlight some of the possible construction issues.

The "Incomplete Guide to Airfoil Usage" for the Seamew is..er..incomplete as it just says NACA 230??!
The last two digits on a 5 digit NACA air foil are the t/c ratio. The best guess from photos and drawings is about 15% so:-

Convention would be to use 'plug in' wings but with a fixed undercarriage plug in wing outer panels (at the flap/aileron break) makes more structural sense but the end result does take up quite a bit more storage space!

I always liked the look of the Seamew ( a poor mans Gannet) but the various airframe mods as you have mentioned caused delays in its development but then it was overtaken by the use of helicopters to do the same job without needing a carrier to operate from.

The final 'fine line' drawing.

HK delivered the 4 blade 10x8.25 prop along with the 2836 950kV motor. All remarkably cheap!
On the test stand to see what happens.

Had to guess the prop and motor combination however on a big capacity 3s it draws 19.6 A giving 223W which should be quite adequate for what should be no more than a 2lb plane.
The 950kV version of the motor is rated for 250W max but the reviews suggest it gets rather hot at that power level.
At 223W mine certainly does!
The prop runs true but the balance is only just about adequate.
4 blades will not go on my magnetic prop balancer so it may take a bit of sticky tape 'trial and error' to determine which blade is the culprit.

Now to start working out what parts could be 3D printed!

The Seamew has fairly simple undercarriage with the wheels carried in a fork which looked like a good candidate for 3D printing.
The first attempt.

In position over the plan.

Not yet in its final form but surprisingly strong with quite a bit of give as well.
It will use a 2.5" (65 mm) wheel.
The intention is that each leg, with long travel suspension, will be held in the wing by a single nylon bolt.

Ill email the undercarriage drawings for the F104 lol

Yes indeed.
What you need is a pair of what I think are called torque links. 3D printed as well?