MinnFlyer

My Feedback: (4)

Take a look at the new Great Planes "Rapture 40"

http://www.greatplanes.com/airplanes/gpma0220.html

A friend got one recently, and I was checking it out. Laser cut parts, minimal sheeting, no cap strips, and all interlocking parts. Looks even easier to build than the 4*, and IMHO is much better looking to boot!

rajul

My Feedback: (58)

Good to see GP still making kits ! This looks like a good one......

JNorton

My Feedback: (2)

Hi Minn,
I like the looks of the Rapture. About time GP got into laser cutting! Just wish the manual was online. Maybe it will be later.

I sure love my 4 Star 40. I lowered the big bubble canopy so it doesn't look so darn ugly! Didn't think I'd like the open cheeks on the Four Star, but it sure makes adjusting the motor easier. I see the Rapture is the same. If the Rapture flys like a 4 Star, GP will have a winner.

John

MinnFlyer

My Feedback: (4)

As far as I know, GP has been making all of their newer kits with laser cutting.

This definately looks to me like they are going straight at the 4*. Same easy build, same cheeks for easy engine access, and I have built the 4*, this uses better building techniques IMHO. Looks a lot like the Ultra Sport, but with a bigger wing. Much sleeker looking than the 4*.

Should be a winner. Can't wait to see it fly!

dr_wogz

My Feedback: (3)

There was a discussion abotu this plane being a 'trimed down' version of their recently re-released Ultra sport 40

'tis tempting though!!

JNorton

My Feedback: (2)

It does look similar, doesn't it. The Ultra Sport + has a tapered wing though. I really think Minn has it right and their going after Sig's Four Stars. I really wish the online manual would be available.

John

Elwood

My Feedback: (2)

The engine bay looks a little cramped, but that is just my impression looking at the photo. I think the 4*40 looks sleeker if the canopy is trimmed down, like mine

dega500

Hey Minn,

Do the laser cut parts alone make it worth the extra $27 or are there other superior features that you know of?

Mike

MinnFlyer

My Feedback: (4)

To me the looks alone are worth an extra $50.

I love the way the 4* flys, but boy, that's a butt ugly airplane.

(No offense to you 4* lovers)

phread59

Hey Minn don't you know beuty is in the eye of the beholder? If'n the darn thing flies good it's a great looker to me. But then I'm kinda on the ugly side myself so anything looks good to me. LOL

Mark Shuman

SeenMCrash

A little off-topic, but GP also went for the throat of GWS with GP's "Yard Stick".

dega500

I had pretty much decided to stick with Sig just because of the success I've had building and flying my LT-40. The plan was to make a few mods to the 4*40 for my next plane. New balsa cowl, modified canopy, sheeted turtle deck, etc. There are some really good threads and sights on making this "butt ugly" plane pretty cool looking.

But, I have to admit, I have always seen a GP Ultra Sport Plus in my hangar in the near future. They are one of the best looking sport 40's out there and now the Rapture 40 comes along and almost looks like its twin. What's a guy to do?

MinnFlyer

My Feedback: (4)

That, to me, is one of the real beauties of this plane... you don't have to deviate from the plans to make it look good.

And BTW, if you like building Sig kits, you'll LOVE GP. IMO they use even better building techniques than Sig.

MinnFlyer

My Feedback: (4)

That, to me, is one of the real beauties of this plane... you don't have to deviate from the plans to make it look good.

And BTW, if you like building Sig kits, you'll LOVE GP. IMO they use even better building techniques than Sig.

stuk_at_work

My Feedback: (111)

Hmm. Could this be my winter project?

I agree with Mike, G.P. kits are pretty easy to build, and I have yet to see one not fly nice. The only time I ever took issue with one of their kits was when I built my son's Easy Sport. G.P. "economized" on manuals by using the same manual for the 40 & 60 sized plane. Couple that with optional instructions for building as "trike" or taildragger, and at times I thought I needed dramamine as I was getting so dizzy skipping around the manual. BTW, I purchased and built that Easy Sport over a year ago, and it was die-cut. Extremely well done die-cut, but not laser.

It will be interesting to see if they phase out the diecut kits as they introduce new designs.

JNorton

My Feedback: (2)

I like disagreeing with Mike. I do it so seldom

The Sig Four Star with it's ugly slab sides is still going to be easier to build than the GP. I know the Sig flys better with a wing bay chopped off. (Not saying it flys better than the Rapture, just saying that it flys better modified than stock.) I also prefer fuselage rather than wing mounted landing gear.

However there is absolutely no denying that it (Rapture) is a much better looking plane.

John

dega500

Other than being laser cut, what exactly does the Rapture bring to the GP table. GP advertises the Ultra Sport Plus and the Super Sportster as Great second planes with minor CG and control throw adjustments. Admittedly I am now leaning toward the GP planes after doing a little research but can’t help but wonder if I should just jump right to the Ultra Sport + (retracts would be cool) or Super Sportster which would both take me farther into more advanced levels of flight. Can someone please give their opinions of these planes as seconds. I don’t put much stock in MFG descriptions.

Thanks

Mike

MinnFlyer

My Feedback: (4)

I am a big fan of GP kits, but I have to say that I think they are very misleading in their claim that the US+ is a good second plane.

The term "Second Plane" itself is so vague that it defies any easy description.

A "Textbook" second plane would be a shoulder wing with a semi-symmetrical airfoil that is held on with rubberbands. It should also be durable because (as I have said many times) you're more likely to crash your second plane than you are your first (Providing you learned from a qualified instructor).

With this definition, the 4*, Tiger, and Rapture (et. al.) would NOT make a good second plane.

But everyone is different, and due to the nature of our lives nowadays, many people pick it up faster than they would have 20 years ago. So the definition of "Second Plane" has had it's "BAR" raised considerably. Of course, I also know many people that still need help after many years of flying.

So if you are so inclined as to skip the "Traditional" version of a second plane, and get into something slightly more advanced, the manufacturers are complying with planes like the 4*, Tiger, and now, the Rapture.

There are many people out there who could easily fly an advanced airplane on their second time out. As long as nothing goes wrong, or nothing unexpected happens, they are fine. It's just like the driver who claims "I've been driving for 30 years and never had an accident." Of course they fail to notice that they never had anyone cut them off, or stop short in front of them, or maybe they drive 20mph on the freeway when it's snowing. The point is, they never had an accident, because they were never in an "Accident Situation".

Same with an airplane. A novice could easily "Fly the Box" with an advanced airplane as long as nothing unexpected happens. But what if the wind suddenly tries to flip them over? Will they recover in time? Will they remain calm, and give the right inputs to correct the flight path? Or will they panic, or hesitate just long enough to see that advanced plane make a smoking hole?

So in a forum like this, I try to avoid blanket recommendations, because I don't know very many of you first hand, but I WOULD say that if you're in the market for an aerobatic trainer, and you are looking at the 4* (but like me, you don't care for its looks) then I would suggest taking a good look at the Rapture.

rajul

My Feedback: (58)

Wonder if there'll be a rapture 60 ?

dega500

Thanks Minn,

That's what I thought. I just thought that it was funny for GP to describe all these planes as being good second planes. If that were the case, why would you need the other two. I had in fact decided on the 4* as my "second" plane and was looking forward to trying some of the mods described in this forum. Actually my "second plane" plane is going to be my LT-40 with a new wing (that I am scratch building as we speak). It will be shortened one rib bay and sport zero dihedral. (Wish me luck). Thanks for all the info. I will definitely consider the Rapture 40 when I finally decide.

Mike