Seawind......What is the truth?
Andrew Crosby
I have sent off for the video as I am very interested in building something
that has far more appeal than your standard Piper Arrow. Which I owned for
five years. (five hundred flying hours and an instrument rating).
But now I want much more!!!
Reading all the comments that are about in this newsgroup it makes you wonder.
The magazine articles would have us believe that it is the greatest
thing since sliced bread.
As we live in Australia it is not possible to see a completed plane
let alone fly one. If we want to go ahead we will need to fly to the
States to examine one.
Are they practical, do they fly as far as listed, and as fast, and still let you land
in all the out of the way places?
Hungry for anything you can tell us.
Andrew.
Glenn Schentag
I am like you. I am very interested in the Seawind. Unfortunatly SNA,
the company who makes the kits, seems to carry a bit of bad baggage.
All of my research leads me to believe SNA is not to be trusted.
I live in Vancouver, B.C. Canada, SNA would not accept a credit card for
my Video & Info package. They insisted I send a Certified check. It was
a pain, but I did. The Video is of the Seawind 2000. It is a very poor
quality taken from a moving boat. My 8yr daughter takes better video
with our 8mm camcorder. I was very disappointed. There was no builder
testamony. I asked for a list of builders I could talk to and have seen
no response yet.
My understanding of the major problems with the craft is that it
is over wieght and under powered. As well I understand the braking
system needs beefing up. It is all to bad because it sure is a sexy
looking craft.
I would be very interested in it if SNA would produce a carbon fiber kit.
Anyway, good luck. Seems the only people that have anything good to say
about the Seawind and SNA also own the Magazines SNA might advertise in.
Glenn
Seaturbine
>Andrew.
Dear Andrew,
The Seawind is a beautiful plane, no doubt. There are a couple of problems
though!.
1. Its heavy, real heavy. Much heavier than the (manufacturer) says. I say
manufacturer, because, they make nothing. Everything is subcontracted. I'm
don't think that there is anything wrong with that in itself, but in this
case, it causes many problems. The wings are made in Chile. The tail in
Washington State, everything else comes from all over. The problem here,
is that nothing fits very well. We have factory installed wing ribs in the
wrong place, and paid about 300 dollars for the pleasure. This caused a
major redesign effort, and was a pain. Do you think that SNA would refund
the money for their error? Think again.
2. SNA will not publish AD notes. I'm not sure why, I attribute it to
their distaste for paying for the fix.
3. The Seawind is basically unstable. The major problem seems to be the
stabilizer. It is not large enough. (It is after we get finished with it),
but from the "factory", it is my opinion that it is not large enough.
Without being condescending or overlysimplistic, here are the basics:
The high centerline of thrust is driving the nose downward. This effect
causes problems for pilots that are not used to it. On takeoff, with an
excellerating airplane, this effect will be very pronounced. You as a
pilot, will trim for it, and with this huge amount of trim in place,
aborting a takeoff becomes a problem. If you abort a takeoff, the prop
becomes an air brake. This airbrake and the large up trim, will pitch the
plane up violently.
One of the prototypes, in Canada, had this problem. They built the plane,
and the wing incidence was set very shallow. Either 0 or +1 degrees.
Anyway, with this incidence the plane wouldn't get off the water. The
pilot, after blasting down a lake for a couple of miles, aborted the
takeoff attempt, and pulled back the power. At this point, the plane leapt
into the air, and shot up to 150ft, and without any power, he immediately
stalled. The plane pancaked into the water, broke apart, and sank. ( This
was back in the days that they thought that wood would be the best
material for the Seawind). It is still sitting on the bottom of the lake.
Pilot survived, but had to change his shorts.
They built another plane, and set the incidence at +5 degrees. This time,
the plane got off the water OK, but it flew with a nose down attitude, and
subsequently was very slow. Then they tried +3 degrees, and this worked
well. It seems to be a good compromise, and this is where it is now. Now
for the tail, the incidence of the stab is -2 degrees. (Trying to push the
tail down, to make up for the high thrust effect). The Lake Amphibian,
uses (I think about -7 degrees). But -7 is going to slow the plane down to
much. -7 would be
great for takeoff and landing, but disastrous for high speed cruise.
When SNA increased the HP of the Seawind to 300, this added a bunch of
weight, and they didn't change the tail. The pitch control was inadequate.
We final assembled the first kit built 300 HP Seawind in my shop, and this
is what we found:
We knew we had a problem, when the elevator was at full up, and if you
slowed below 80 mph, the plane wanted to pitch down.
Our low cost and quick remedy, was to increase the size of the elevator. I
made it 3 inches longer in cord, and we tried it. Not much better. Then I
went 4 and a half inches wider, each side.
This did the trick, and we got on with the testing. SNA either heard about
what we did, or arrived at the same place we did on their own, after us.
Anyway, now they call it a mandatory modification.
Our next mod, will be to build a trimable stab. I want -7 for takeoff and
landing, and 0 for high speed cruise. We have already started it, and it
should be done in a couple of months.
4. The weight. Like I said, the first kit built plane weighed 2500 lbs. It
was supposed to weigh 2200 lbs. The plane was built in strict accordance
with the instructions. This caused radical problems for me. I was building
a plane for a group that did research expeditions. With the true weight of
the plane coming to light, then the range would have to be reduced. Let me
explain.
2500 empty
3400 gross.
you have 900 left.
Now, fill the tanks with 110 gallons of fuel 660 lbs.
you have 240 left
50 lbs of ballast if you fly alone
you have 190 left.
30 lbs of tools, safety gear, extra oil,
you have 160 left.
Did I forget a dual battery. might be good for those remote locations.
40 lbs.
you have 120 left.
I hope you don't eat many cheeseburgers.
4 people, 1400 miles like the advertisement implies, its bullshit!!!!
You could fly overweight, most do, but this seems to be, well, goofy.
This is why we went to the Turbine. Trying to save 300 lbs. More high
altitude horsepower. Firewall forward, its an Australian Nomad. Same
cowling, same engine, same prop. Works great. I know, I engineered the
conversion.
5. Steering, is a problem. The plane uses differential braking to steer.
But, the wheels are close together. Very difficult to steer. Needs a nose
wheel steering. Paul Furnee is close to a good system, but it has not been
tried yet. Its hydraulic, so more weight.
6. SNA is a big problem. Very difficult to deal with. We are moving away
from the Seawind business, because of this reason. I have decided that
instead on criticizing, I am going ahead with a similar design, only 6
place. Turbine only. We will use a Walter 601 engine (low cost) or a PT6,
or the Allison. Depending on customer desire.
7. The manual for the Seawind is the biggest piece of crap that ever
existed. Measurements are wrong, angles are off. It was written in theory,
problem is, the person that wrote the manual has never built the plane.
You can tell. He might have worked on it, here and there, but the guys in
the shop built the plane. The manual was written by someone sitting on a
beach, looking at the stars. Its toilet paper.
8. The plane is made from Vinylester resin (cheap stuff) instead of epoxy.
Also, mostly fiberglass (heavy, and cheap) instead of Carbon and Kevlar.
In the case of the Seawind, you don't get what you pay for. All of the
progressive kit companies are using Carbon and Kevlar.
9. The brakes are very poor. The Seawind uses Matco brakes. Have you ever
heard of these brakes. Cleveland, maybe, but Matco??. Must be a reason,
could it be that they are cheaper. Imagine that. Anyway, the Matco's are
designed for a 2200 lb. airplane, not a 3500 lb. airplane. (We use
Cleveland's).
10. SNA says that you can build the Seawind for 85,000. Don't count on it.
It will take between 3500 and 5000 hours to build this plane. Translation
: 3 hours a day, it will take 4 to 5 years. What is the cost of the money
while you are building. The first kit built Seawind cost 160,000 and this
is a realistic figure. Add 100,000 for a Turbine, if you want someone else
to build it. With a Turbine, it becomes much more complex, and
subsequently takes longer.
11. The fuel gauges from SNA don't work very well. They are just getting
around to admitting it. (We use a different system, that has proven itself
already).
12. OK, you have been working on the plane for 4000 hours, you are into
the finish work, you think that you see the light at the end of the
tunnel, but, you need to make a template of the wing, to see how close the
wing is to what the blueprint says it is supposed to be. This is where the
fun starts. You find that to achieve even a close resemblance to the
intended wing shape you need at least
an inch and a half of filler on the leading edge. You are now at the point
where you don't even bother to call SNA, because you realize that only one
of two things will happen. Either they will not have an answer, and they
will try to bluff their way off the phone, or they will just lie, and tell
you that you built it wrong.
Then again, you might get lucky, and they might give you answer #3 (my
personal favorite) " yes, we have had this problem with the first 50
airplanes".
This one is supposed to make you feel better. Kind of like (your plane is
a pieceof crap, but we are not building them this way anymore). Doesn't
much matter to you anymore, because you are moving ahead, and soon you
will be finished with the wiring, and then you are going to weigh it.
13. The SNA airplane, cannot take off more than two times in a row without
overheating. There is not enough air moving over the engine with the
present design piston cowling. Seeing 250 degrees F oil temp is not
uncommon in summer. We are helping the guy with the first kit built piston
plane solve the problem. (The Turbine does not have the problem).
14. The first kit built only piston kit built Seawind gets 160 mph (not
knots) at 60% power. (22 in manifold, 2200 rpm, 3000 ft. ASL).
If I haven't turned you off this plane by now, I suggest that you talk to
other builders. It is not my desire to turn you off, just to tell the
truth. The Seawind Pilots Association Newsletter publishes a list of
builders from time to time. There are no problems with the Seawind that
cannot be solved. Then it would be as good as sliced bread. It would cost
quite a bit of money and time to engineer the fixes, and since SNA is such
a goofy company, we are just going to phase the
Seawind out.
There is more, but its late, and I am tired. I suggest that you subscribe
to the Seawind Pilots Association newsletter. Its cheap, and not produced
by SNA.
(The SNA newsletter is just a sales letter (the plane is perfect, ect.
ect.)).
A SEAWIND Pilots Association has been in existence for almost one
year. It is open to anyone who is interested in the SEAWIND. The primary
activity of this association is the publishing of a newsletter every two
months. Articles are mostly on hints in
building the SEAWIND, reports on completion's along with the performance
achieved, items that members have for sale, sources and hints regarding
purchases. To join sent $10 US or $14 Can to Dick Adams, 6 Wren Rd.,
Gloucester, Ontario, Canada, K1J 7H4. Make your check out to Dick Adams as
the SEAWIND Pilots Association is not incorporated and does not have a
bank account. This membership fee is used only to cover the cost of
producing and sending the newsletter. The amount sent is sufficient to
last for at least 12 issues, or two years. Please include, if you wish,
your telephone number, fax numbers, and E mail address, as well as your
regular address. The list of members with this information is
periodically published as part of the newsletter so that members can
interact, e.g. contact and visit builders.
Best regards,
Douglas Karlsen
Turbine Seawind built
