shleprock

Some of the guys in the club suggest a stick (stik?) as a second plane. How do they fly compared to the "regular" low wing trainers like 4*, tiger, and pulse xt? My name is on the next Pulse 60 that arrives at the LHS. I was just wondering how the stiks compare. I see there many variations of the stiks also; Ultra, Ultralite, giant and many others. Thanks.

HighPlains

My Feedback: (1)

They all fly about the same. The primary advantage to the stik type airplane is the simplicity, toughness, and the total lack of love you will feel toward the airplane. Not loving the airplane helps, since it's purpose it to build you into a decent pilot. Side mount the engine, set it up as a tail dragger, and really learn what the controls do, both upright and inverted.

F4U Corsair

My Feedback: (22)

The low wing planes you mentioned look and perform great, but everyone should have a Stik in their hanger! They can fly slow and land like a trainer or crank up the power and they perform acrobatics well also. If it is your 2nd plane I vote for the Stik.

draftman1

Das ugly stick!!! its just a natural second plane

bigedmustafa

My Feedback: (2)

I flew both at the same time. The plane on the left is a Thunder Tiger Tiger Stick .40 ARF and the one on the right is my Goldberg Tiger 2. They're both outstanding planes.

I flew the Tiger Stick so much that the ailerons and wood around the torque rods near the wing bolts got oil soaked from exhaust. After 300+ flights, it sits in my garage awaiting repair. I loved flying that plane enough that I use its photo as my avatar here on the RC Universe forums.

The Tiger 2 has been flown by me at least 200+ times in the past three years. It was originally built from a kit by my friend Bob almost 20 years ago. It is being restored and recovered right now so I can go put a few hundred more flights on it. The almost two decades-old covering had delaminated and I wanted to freshen up the plane before the cover just peeled off one day in flight.

They share many of the same virtues. They can both be landed as easily as any high-wing trainer. They're both terrific at aerobatics. They're both sturdy and very reliable and easy to work on. They're both a blast to put up into the air and ring out.

Buy either aircraft and you'll be ecstatic with your choice. Buy them both and you'll never want to go home once you get out to the flying field.

Aerobat5

I had an ultra stick. It was a great flying airplane, with a huge performance envelope. Barn door elevators and flaps, easy to work in. One major problem though, at a distance without a destinct canopy or color differential top to bottom, it was difficult to tell the attitude of the plane once I started doing some aerobatics. I will never again buy an airplane with see through coating. Different colors top and bottom are a must. Low wing planes offer better aerobatics, but are a little less forgiving to sloppy flying.

TZflyer

I have a 4* and a Stik and I love them both. I find the Stik to be a more capable aerobat but I am not an expert so others may disagree. Both planes land very easily with very gentle stalls. You wont go wrong with either but for me the Stik can be a little wilder than the 4* if you want it to be.
Only problem is I like to build (kits not scratch) and the only Stiks in South Africa are ARF

brett65

My Feedback: (18)

I have a cheap type of stik style aircraft, and its alot of fun. I seems to be atleast if not more docile than the pulse 40 that I flew last week. It's the ugliest thing, but that's ok cause it allows me to really let loose and try some crazy stuff. Mine will snap roll with any plane out there.

SKYHI1

I have a Four Star 40 and a cou0ple of Das Ugly Sticks. I like the Sticks more. It seems to me it handles the rough winds easier. Otherwise they both are fun to fly. They both land nicely. Maybe it is close to call. But I like the Sticks better.

Good luck
Frank