Register

If this is your first visit, please click the Sign Up now button to begin the process of creating your account so you can begin posting on our forums! The Sign Up process will only take up about a minute of two of your time.

Results 1 to 23 of 23

  1. #1
    mr-rccrazy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Gardnerville, NV
    Posts
    287
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    Sig rascal 110?

    Hello all, I have not posted here for a while due to computer troubles. Anyways, I have been pondering buying a new lazy weekend flyer at the field. I was looking for something big, slow, and not much aof an aerobatic flyer, but just a fun big plane. Has anyone else owned this aircraft? Is the sig rascal 110 pretty good quality? If not, what are some other planes that fit my query?

  2. #2
    DTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Clermont, FL
    Posts
    1,085
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Sig rascal 110?

    A fellow club member has a Rascal 110 and he loves it. He says it flys very easily and will float to a landing. He has a G26 up front which really does pull the plane very well. The quality is very good and is what would be expected from the company.

    Other club members have the 40 size Rascal and they all love theirs also.

    I seriously doubt you would be dissappointed with a Rascal 110.
    FLY IT HARD AND HOVER IT LOW!!!

    http://derrick.myphotoalbum.com

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Bradenton , FL
    Posts
    2,262
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Sig rascal 110?

    I have flown the Rascal and went with the Kangke Monocoupe 90 instead... NO COMPARISON the monocoupe is one of the most beautiful high - quality ARFs you will ever see. It costs about the same as the rascal and NEEDS nothing but engine and radio. The kit is amazingly complete. It is a REAL scale plane, not some generic looking high winger and it goes together easily. I was flying in two days of evenings.

    I pull mine out and not an eye at the field is off my plane! It is very big and graceful.

    Check out some of the threads here are RCU. I have a 16oz tank and a G26 up front. I routinely get 1/2 hour flights on it. It looks and flies like a real plane - takeoffs are awesome and landings are very scale, requires a little prop and a nice flare. It will fly at walking speed with full flaps and is actually difficult to stall.

    It is so pretty in the air that you will fly it overhead just to look at it from underneath.. you'de swear it was a real plane.

    If I sound like I am in love with this plane.. well, I am. I fly mostly high speed, high performance aerobats, but this plane really caught my eye a while back. When I want to unwind, this is what I fly. It is truly a flying work of art. Throttle down and its as lazy as can be.. throttle up and you can do some very realistic barnstormer scale stunts like loops, wingovers, tail slides. Even though it has a non-symetrical wing, it will also fly inverted with a little work!

    Check it out!!
    http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_13...tm.htm#1398439

    ** and **

    www.kangkeusa.com

    DP


    PS: not bashing the rascal in any way.. that is one very nice ARF too - impeccable quality, just isn't as realistic and eye-catching as the monocoupe...

  4. #4
    mr-rccrazy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Gardnerville, NV
    Posts
    287
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Sig rascal 110?

    Thanks, I'll look into that one too.

  5. #5
    mr-rccrazy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Gardnerville, NV
    Posts
    287
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Sig rascal 110?

    also, what would be the best engine in your oppinion for either of these planes? I was thinking about a zenoah g-26, or maybe a supertigre g-2300. The super tiger is a lot less expensive, and I don't need gobs of power for this plane. *the super tigre still pumps out 3.7 hp and a top rpm of 12,600 rpm. Tell me what you think? Are the SuperTigre engines reliable?

    Ps: Do you think that a zenoah g-38 is a little overkill? or do you think it would be alright?

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Bradenton , FL
    Posts
    2,262
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Sig rascal 110?

    The G-26 is the best fit for both planes. The G-38 would be way too much engine. The G-26 will save enough fuel cost in the first month of flying to pay any difference in cost over the ST. The ST is a good engine, but a big fuel hog - it does not run well on less than 15% nitro either. not to mention the horrible mess left behind on the plane every flight.

    Go with gas, it is well worth it. Bring to the field your plane, radio and $2 worth of gas and fly all day!!! And when you're done... no cleanup!!!

    DP

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Gray, GA
    Posts
    1,173
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Sig rascal 110?

    Have a 110 Rascal with a G-26. I love it. It will knife edge, hover,( well it will hang for a while before it tail slides), slow snap, and it will fly 2 inches above the strip at walking speed if you want to. I love to just fly about a foot above the tall grass and make turns without banking the plane like power line checkers and search & rescue teams do. The plane is beautiful and graceful and BIG !
    you can't go wrong with it.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Spokane, WA
    Posts
    263
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Sig rascal 110?

    I have a new Rascal and was thinking about using my OS 120 twin. After reading the above comments I am questioning it's power.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Gray, GA
    Posts
    1,173
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Sig rascal 110?

    OS 120 TWIN !!! Read the specs. I think it will pull the heck out of a 110 will be fine. , Only reason I have a G-26 is I don't do glow.

  10. #10
    Col. Buckshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    22
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Sig rascal 110?

    A 120 4/stroke is more than enough engine. The Rascal 110 has a glide ratio that will make a glider pilot envious, you could probably thermal it. I have a Satio 150 on mine and it maintains altitude at idle. I gotta get a smaller prop or a 120 for it. I have the Monocoupe also, just have'nt finished it yet. There both good planes. It depends on what you like. A scale plane with flaps to have fun shooting touch and goes, cuban 8's etc... Or a sport plane you can fly sitting in a lawn chair and with a few mods try your hand at glider towing or aerial photography. Either way you can't loose. Why not do what I did and get both?

  11. #11

    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Spokane, WA
    Posts
    263
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Sig rascal 110?

    I do have the best of both worlds. The 110 is in the box and the Monocoupe w/ G23 is ready for a test hop. I also have the H9 T.Craft w/ OS160, two Cubs one J3 and one Super W/150's and a 28% Ultimate w/OS160. Both sizes of Space Walkers and a Morrisy Bravo. It can't get any better. I ran out of radio gear!

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Loveland, CO
    Posts
    206
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Sig rascal 110?

    A couple of my flying buddies have the Rascal 110's with Saito 180's. I've flown them as well. They fly just like my Rascal 40, but smoother. The Sig kits are very good quality as well. The only complaints is about the fuel consumption of the 180's.

    I realize that aerobatics is not the primary purpose of this plane, but the Rascal 110's are reasonably capable in this area (except for slow ailerons). They have excellent knife edge capability. With the 180 it's easy to do great knife-edge loops, even at our 5000ft altitude.

    Overall a great flying plane.

    Greg

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Leander, TX
    Posts
    6,144
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Sig rascal 110?

    I fly my Rascal 110 with a saito 120. Plenty of power. You dont need more unless you want it. There is a picture of a big rascal on rcgoups in the giant scale forum with a G-26 hovering over the runway along side another aerobat. Its a nice laid back low pucker power cruiser with a 120 on it. Will also do basic aerobatics and knife edge long as you want. Like was said, rolls are slow and need a little rudder help to be axial. The rudder is very effective on this plane. It helps a lot to do coordinated turns, otherwise the tail drags a bit during an aileron only turn. I love to see very slow rolls. I've even seen one with a saito 150 hover at our field for a few seconds before falling off. I like gas, but you really dont use that much glow fuel in a saito 120. I think a saito 100 would fly it, but dont try any aerobatics. A bigger engine would be fun, but I have other planes for that purpose. Just my opinion. You can see what a 120 does for one at http://www.gamarc.org/ in the video section on the left.
    Edwin

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Gray, GA
    Posts
    1,173
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Sig rascal 110?

    Blackhawk RCU, I have one thing for you
    Well maybe 2-[sm=thumbup.gif]
    OK maybe 3
    You da man,
    If you get tired of all them planes give me a call.

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Wilmette, IL
    Posts
    6
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Sig rascal 110?

    Can anyone advise if a Ryobi 31 conversion will match at all with the Sig Rascal 110? I am in the midst of an engine conversion and would love to use this motor in the Rascal, however I fear it might be too much of a good thing.

    Thanks in advance for any help

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Bradenton , FL
    Posts
    2,262
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Sig rascal 110?

    The Weedie will have about 20% more weight and 1/3 less power than a G-26. Your only worries will be too much weight and not enough power.... oh yeah... dead sticks too !

    I just watched a guy lose his Rascal when his weedie conversion dead sticked on rollout .. cryin shame.. you might want to look into a G-26...

    DP

  17. #17
    Volfy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    3,227
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Sig rascal 110?

    ORIGINAL: orthoman

    Can anyone advise if a Ryobi 31 conversion will match at all with the Sig Rascal 110? I am in the midst of an engine conversion and would love to use this motor in the Rascal, however I fear it might be too much of a good thing.
    Depends on which version of the Ryobi you get. If you get the old single ring version out of a used weedie, then you'll get at best 7000rpm with an 18x8. Go for a new twin-ring Ryobi 31cc, and it will blow the doors of the G-26. As with anything DIY, quality and reliability vary greatly depending on who did what with which parts. The conversion engines I do for myself are done with CH Synchrospark auto-advance electronic ignition and the reliability is on par with any commercially available RC gasser, many of which share the same "humble" indusctrial engine origin as the Ryobi. Many of them also use the exact same CH ignitions.

    I have a Racal 110 still NIB. And I also have a twin-ring Ryobi 31cc half way converted, among other conversion engines and made-for-RC gassers I own. Here's my take on the combo:

    Pros: Ryobi is rear exhaust and so has a narrow frontal "footprint" if you convert to CH ign. Should fit within the slender cowl of the Racal 110.

    Cons: If you stay with the OEM magneto ignition, weight will be a problem, not to mention the big ol' flywheel sticking out all around the cowl. Also most commercially available Ryobi motor mount will have put the prop hub about 7.25" in front of the firewall - way too long for the Rascal. You'll have to mount the Ryobi crankcase directly on the firewall, and then perform major firewall surgery to clear the muffler and carb.

    I'd say the Ryobi 31cc is a good engine power-wise but not an easy fit for the Rascal. I will be using one of my other conversion engines - either an Echo 25.4cc or a Cub Cadet 25cc. I'll save the Ryobi 31cc probably for my GP PT-19.

    Good luck.
    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

  18. #18

    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Spokane, WA
    Posts
    263
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Sig rascal 110?

    I decided to use my Saito 150 in my Rascal. It is fast at half throttle, I may power it down. It will float forever in a slight headwind and all in all is a GREAT airplane.

  19. #19

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Wilmette, IL
    Posts
    6
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Sig rascal 110?

    Ryobi in a Rascal Thread on RC Universe
    7/23/04


    My Question:
    Can anyone advise if a Ryobi 31 conversion will match at all with the Sig Rascal 110? I am in the midst of an engine conversion and would love to use this motor in the Rascal, however I fear it might be too much of a good thing.

    Thanks in advance for any help

    Reply #1
    The Weedie will have about 20% more weight and 1/3 less power than a G-26. Your only worries will be too much weight and not enough power.... oh yeah... dead sticks too !

    I just watched a guy lose his Rascal when his weedie conversion dead sticked on rollout .. cryin shame.. you might want to look into a G-26...

    DP desertpig
    Resident Addict



    Reply #2 Volfy Super Contributor
    Depends on which version of the Ryobi you get. If you get the old single ring version out of a used weedie, then you'll get at best 7000rpm with an 18x8. Go for a new twin-ring Ryobi 31cc, and it will blow the doors off the G-26. As with anything DIY, quality and reliability vary greatly depending on who did what with which parts. The conversion engines I do for myself are done with CH Synchrospark auto-advance electronic ignition and the reliability is on par with any commercially available RC gasser, many of which share the same "humble" industrial engine origin as the Ryobi. Many of them also use the exact same CH ignitions.

    I have a Racal 110 still NIB. And I also have a twin-ring Ryobi 31cc half way converted, among other conversion engines and made-for-RC gassers I own. Here's my take on the combo:

    Pros: Ryobi is rear exhaust and so has a narrow frontal "footprint" if you convert to CH ign. Should fit within the slender cowl of the Racal 110.

    Cons: If you stay with the OEM magneto ignition, weight will be a problem, not to mention the big ol' flywheel sticking out all around the cowl. Also most commercially available Ryobi motor mount will have put the prop hub about 7.25" in front of the firewall - way too long for the Rascal. You'll have to mount the Ryobi crankcase directly on the firewall, and then perform major firewall surgery to clear the muffler and carb.

    I'd say the Ryobi 31cc is a good engine power-wise but not an easy fit for the Rascal. I will be using one of my other conversion engines - either an Echo 25.4cc or a Cub Cadet 25cc. I'll save the Ryobi 31cc probably for my GP PT-19.

    Good luck.
    Thanks all for the generous replies. Volfy, I do indeed have a newer Ryobi short shaft with twin rings and am excited to read your comments. For now, I do plan to use it stock with the magneto. The debate was to use this motor vs my 21 cc Echo. Actually, the rear carb and exhaust do seem to fit the cowl of the Rascal 110 better than the Echo. The length is a bit of a problem. I was thinking of buying an additional cowl from Sig and using about one inch of it to extend the cowl length. The Echo was free and the Ryobi was a 49.95 special from Harbor Freight.

    Some additional points. I reviewed everything I could find on the web about the conversion. Yet, I have come up with an idea no one seems to have mentioned. Naturally this makes me worry my idea may be flawed. In aircraft motors, one does not like flaws. One set of instructions mentioned reversing the steel drive nut/shaft that holds the flywheel on and sawing off the square portion that drives the weedie flexible shaft, tapping the remainder and mounting it reversed. I could never understand this. Instead, I simply drilled out the steel shaft to the proper tap diameter and, working from the threaded side to maintain precise alignment, tapped the entire ID and rethreaded the shaft on the original way. Now, I can machine on my lathe a prop hub bored out to fit over the shaft to any length I want. I would use a hardened bolt to mount the prop. The hub is not yet machined, but I bolted a prop on with washers and it is a very solid setup. The bolt engages plenty of full-depth steel threads in the shaft. How simple and strong! Why isn't everyone doing this? No special custom shaft extension needed. I don't get it. Also, I can keep the overall length considerably shorter this way.

    As far as a motor mount, I simply plan to make aluminum pedestal mounts of minimum length engaging a 1/8 aluminum plate on the rear of the motor. I could even use a thinner, larger (say 1/16 or thinner) aluminum "liner" on the firewall to distribute the forces and provide rigidity to the 4 pedestal mounts. Lengthening the cowl by 1/2 inch or more by the previously described method is no big deal.

    I also figured that if this works at all, I could later concentrate on weight removal from the engine. The 4 front plate mounting bosses could easily be machined off. (even without a machine shop they could be sawed and filed down). An advanced idea would be to mount the flywheel in a rotary table and precisely machine off the fins between the magnet and counterweight sides, taking exactly the same amount of metal off both sides. This alone would take off significant weight. Of course, one does not mess with flywheel balance lightly!

    You also mention having the prop hub out so far. Is this strictly a CG issue requiring additional weight in the tail or is there another problem with this? And as for reliability, is the magneto system considered that unreliable? Don't some commercial variants come with magneto ignition as well? I figure any electronic component can fry. Automotive electronic control modules can have highly variable lives. At least this is a pointless ignition. A little oil on them there points and good by spark! (How do they trigger that coil anyhow?)

    Anyhow, my most major concern was pouring all this effort into a motor that might be way too heavy or powerful for the plane. This is the area where my complete lack of experience was triggering red flags in my eager to fly brain and I turned to that great font of wisdom known as RC Universe!

    Thanks again for the advice from all.

    PS: Just found this thread on ...ARF or RTF >> Sigs 110" Rascal! Any one have one yet?

    I have the blue one. I have flown it 6 flights now. I set mine up with a Ryobi .31. Because of the rear mounted carb, I had to build an extension out to get the cowl something to attach on to but it turned out pretty good. I like the set up because the only cowl cutting is on the bottom for the jug. The engine will pull it through a pretty big loop and works good to do a neat looking tailslid.

    I fly's real smooth and looks great in the air. Rolls are very slow even with the highest throws and using rudder. The turns on mine take some rudder to make it track through okay. It does beautiful flat turns with just a little aileron to keep it level. I was playing with it and could fly it using rudder only like the smaller versions.

    As far as quality, I have been pleased. The covering did require a LOT of work to get the wrinkles smoothed out. Only other problem was with the thin pull-pull rudder wire. It broke while I was taxing around the yard testing the engine. I replace it with Dubro 4-40 pull-pull cable and have had no further problems.

    Steve

  20. #20
    Volfy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    3,227
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Sig rascal 110?

    Wow, that's a long thread!

    The part about drilling out the output shaft and mounting the prop with a long bolt sounds like it might work, as long as there is enough thickness to the shaft to do that. I think most people don't bother doing that because a ready-made prop hub kit cost around $20-25.

    Bolting the Ryobi, engine mount and all, directly onto the firewall should work, but from what I know the Rascal is not a particularly tail-heavy plane. The picture below is a Racal 110 with a Saito 1.50, I believe. The owner told me it balanced fine without tail weights. This means that a 4lbs Ryobi hanging off the nose almost 7-1/2" is going to need a big chunk of lead in the tail. Of course, nothing is impossible if you spend some time, and maybe money, on it. Personally, I would choose the Echo 21cc over the Ryobi. The FPE 21cc shown in the manual is essentially the same Echo engine you have and so power should be plenty. If you're willing to spend the money and get the FPE muffler, the only thing that stick out of the cowl should be the carb.

    I use CH Electronic ignition on all my conversion engines. I am just not a magneto flywheel kinda guy. This is not to say the OEM ignition system don't work just fine. They do. THere are a lot of happy Ryobi owners out there perfectly happy with the original magneto ignition. I simply prefer to spend a littler more on the conversion to get a lighter, easier starting and smoother running engine.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Mj24615.jpg 
Views:	35 
Size:	84.9 KB 
ID:	157429  
    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

  21. #21
    DTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Clermont, FL
    Posts
    1,085
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Sig rascal 110?

    My Friends Rascal 110 at sunset.

    Very relaxing.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Fd92045.jpg 
Views:	15 
Size:	123.7 KB 
ID:	157456  
    FLY IT HARD AND HOVER IT LOW!!!

    http://derrick.myphotoalbum.com

  22. #22

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Leander, TX
    Posts
    6,144
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Sig rascal 110?

    Now thats a nice picture.
    Edwin

  23. #23

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Wilmette, IL
    Posts
    6
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Sig rascal 110?

    Thanks for all the great info and sorry about the humungous thread. A cut-and-paste session spiraled out of control. Then my computer crashed before I could edit the thread.

    Superb and inspirational picture of the Rascal at sunset!

    Ah, Ryobi vs Echo. A little voice is telling me follow the advice of those who have been down a particular path before you...


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:02 AM.

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.