kbailey45

My Feedback: (41)

I am going to attempt my first kit. I have plenty of experience repairing but havent built a kit yet. I am looking ro build something sporty preferably a bipe. Don't really want to do an Ultimate. I found a Sig Smith Bipe I really liked but it got sold before I could get to it. I don't want to spend a whole lot so I need something in the 40-46 size range. I thought about an RV-4 but am still looking. I even looked at a T-Craft. I never knew kits were so hard to find these days. Any suggestions?

EscapeFlyer

My Feedback: (1)

Do you have flying experience?

Goldberg Tiger 60. Perfect 1st kit and the best low wing trainer I've ever had the pleasure to fly.
the Sig Astro Hog would be my 2nd choice.

As for trainers, I'd recommend a Hobby Lobby Telemaster, or a Great Planes PT 60, or a Sig LT 40.

Brian

kbailey45

My Feedback: (41)

Yes i have flown for a long time. Kind of getting low in the hangar and need to add something. I currently only have 3D planes (EF Extra 50cc and Mojo 40, and a little bitty Sukhoi). I am kind of torn between three really the Sig Smith miniplane Bipe, GP T-Craft, and the GP RV-4. And i want to built a kit just because I have never done it.

EscapeFlyer

My Feedback: (1)

I have a lot of experience with the miniplane. It is a little biplane with a BIG heart. I'm afraid it may bore you a bit though. It needs to fly on the wing.

Have you considered an Ultra Sport? Or are you wanting to stick with a biplane?

Brain

shd3920

Have you considered a J-3 Cub? I love the look of those.
http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin...?&I=LXJ568&P=0

kbailey45

My Feedback: (41)

I have heard great things about the Ultra sport but (not to offend anyone) they are just ugly to me. Im not necessarily looking for something extremely aerobatic. I even thought about the Pete n' Poke. I need something that looks good (if I can make it look good is the problem) I can relax and fly but can open it up a little, not much, when I want. i just dont know if there is somehing i should stay away from as far as the buildng side of it goes. All my planes now just look weird if I just fly them around. Im not stuck on a bipe and am realizing I may end up going with something else because I am not finding too many bipe kits. No warbirds though.The T-Craft is only 80 bucks and uses a 20-32 motor so that would help costs but I am afraid it would be too much like a trainer. Like I said I have never built a kit before so anything you guys tell me is helpful.

kbailey45

My Feedback: (41)

I did but just too many around that is what is so appealing to me about the Smith Bipe I have yet to see one but am worried that it may be more of a build than I can handle.

ppkk

I have a Smith bipe kit that I have not yet attempted, but from what I understand it is a "builder's kit." Do a search on it here and follow a build thread or two. If this is your first build, you may choose to pick a different kit to build.

Good luck, and let us know what you end up choosing.

shd3920

Perhaps one of these . . .
Great Planes Ultra Sport 40
http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin...?&I=LXCZR8&P=0

Great Planes Rapture 40
http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin...?&I=LXFHG4&P=0

Goldberg Tiger 2
http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin...?&I=LXDJC9&P=0

kbailey45

My Feedback: (41)

I know I am difficult but none of those are really what I want. Im just gonna keep my eye open and see what I can find. But the RV-4 and Pete n' Poke are high on the list. That Pete n' Poke or the RV-4 would look cool with some crazy graphics that dont really match it at all lol. The RV-4 wing looks like it may be a little hard to build.

foodstick

you could always kit bash the ultra sport... Or possibly build the astro hog bipe ..a sig kit...

Also Balsa USA has a few smaller biplanes I believe.

EscapeFlyer

My Feedback: (1)

Smith Miniplane:

shd3920

Here's a real nice bi-plane
Phaeton II http://www.balsausa.com/store/produc...id_product=835

jship

My Feedback: (4)

I like the looks of the Smith Miniplane. I may have just found My next kit!

Deadeye

I don't think anybody mentioned the SIG Somethin' Extra. It's a fantastic first build, and it can be docile or wild depending on how you set it up.

My Smith Miniplane is in the box still. I just haven't got 'round to it yet. Keep in mind, it's die STAMPED, not die CUT. You have to cut the pieces out on a jigsaw. That might not be the best choice for a first kit. JMHO.

EscapeFlyer

My Feedback: (1)

ppkk is correct. There is not much difference between the kit and a plans built airplane. It is also 1960's construction. When we say stick built- this is no exaggeration.

You will need soldering equipment and an incidence meter.

The instructions assume you have previous building experience as you progress through the build. they are not always self-explanitory. However, the kit building forum can help in this regard. Don't be afraid to ask questions.

The kit itself is very affordable. The airplane flies very well with one exception- It ground loops like nobody's business. It is worse than a cub in that regard. In every other way, it is a blast to fly.

Are you sure you won't reconsider a GP Ultimate, or better yet- a Sig Hog Bipe? The Hog is the perfect first bipe kit as it is the perfect 1st bipe in general.

Brian

scottm50

hi - nice plane is it a modified astro hog?

rambler53

My Feedback: (494)

Keep in mind not having building experience, you need to be careful building a biplane. Incidence of the wings (decalage) is important in how it will end up flying. Make sure you check that both wings have the same or slightly more positive decalage on the top wing to help with lift and stability, but may hurt aerobatics (spin). More information below:

Biplane Secrets - Carl Risteen - Model Airplane News - June 1994
DECALAGE-WORTHWHILE OR A RIGGING NUISANCE?

Decalage is the difference between a bipe's two wings' angles of incidence-the angle at which the wings are placed in relation to the fuselage. Positive decalage gives the upper wing more incidence-negative decalage-the lower wing more incidence.

Positive decalage gives more of the maximum lift to the upper wing and delays the stall of the lower wing to a higher angle of attack, acting like a lot of positive stagger. On the downside, it also slightly lowers the combined maximum lift coefficient of the two wings. Negative decalage, although less commonly used, has just the opposite effect: it slightly increases the maximum lift. Theoretically, negative decalage, by making the lift of the two wings more equal, should reduce drag, but this has not been borne out by experiment. Drag was very slightly reduced by a little positive decalage.
Positive decalage, especially when used with positive stagger, also has a stabilizing influence, tending to make the nose rise as air speed increases (good in a trainer, but bad for aerobatics). This helps to permit the use of a slightly smaller horizontal tail, although at a rather uneconomical cost in terms of lift and drag.

On a bipe with positive stagger, more of the lower wing surface operates in the downwash of the upper wing, reducing its effective angle of attack and its lift. Positive decalage increases this effect. The chief benefit of positive decalage-a softer stall-may detract from clean entry to inside spins and snap rolls. Locating the CG well aft aids aerobatic line-holding accuracy but may also cause pitch sensitivity at high speeds. A little negative decalage may help such a model.

In a vertical dive, with the wings developing zero net lift, a partial vacuum appears between the upper and lower wings. This is a result of the mild venturi effect created by the convex surfaces of the adjacent airfoils. This tends to suck the two wings together with a force that may exceed the weight of the aircraft.

At full speed, straight and level, owing to the venturi effect, the lower wing of a typical bipe flying at about four times its stalling speed may carry nearly all the lift while the upper wing loafs. As the angle of attack is increased, the upper wing rapidly takes over, developing about 10 percent more lift than the lower wing at higher lift coefficients.
On my bipe designs, I have put the inter-wing suction to good use by using plug-in interplane struts without positive retention. They make field assembly easier and, because they aren't securely fastened to the structure, they're unlikely to cause wing damage in a mishap. The use of positive decalage would reduce the suction and increase the possibility of the struts coming adrift in flight. A small amount of preload (provided by making the struts a little longer than required to just match the gap) makes the struts "spring" the wings apart just a little.
____________________________________________
Biplane Design
Understanding the basics by ANDY LENNON
Model Airplane News – probably June 1998

kbailey45

My Feedback: (41)

It looks like will be deciding between the RV-4, T-Craft, and the Pete n Poke. I am leaning towards the RV-4 with flaps.

EscapeFlyer

My Feedback: (1)

GP RV4? That would be a very good choice. [sm=thumbup.gif]

stevenmax50

My Feedback: (1)

Ilikebipes suggested the Tiger 60 and the Great Planes PT 60 as well as a few others.  I have been flying the PT 60 for awhile now and I like it alot.  The build was not difficult.  I have built a few Great Planes models and they have very good instructions and plans.  My next model is the Tiger 60.  Goldberg will send you an addendum to the plans to modify to retractable gear and that is what sold me on that kit for my next build.  Some folks say never bother with retracts but I am hardheaded and I like the clean lines they give a bird in flight.  Just know this....the PT60 has alot of dihedral and is not areobatic where as a low wing like the Tiger 60 while not fully aerobatic, does have alot more capabilities than a high wing trainer.

p100d

4

aa1a

My Feedback: (4)

I've been flying for 4 years and got the bug to build last winter. I wanted to build something I could not go buy. Something different. I did not see the point of building a Tiger when I could go buy one. Our club does monthly float flys in the spring so I decided on a Balsa USA Northstar. The kit and the plans were good and the instruction book was excellent. Lots of pictures. The airplane came out straight and flys like a rocket.
Jim

kbailey45

My Feedback: (41)

GP RV-4 it is. Im gonna order it sometime later today.

cirrus4string

My Feedback: (12)

I started building kits a couple of years ago. And the hardest thing about them at least to me is finding a plane that is not so over welming that you never get done or you start taking short cuts. my first succsesful kit was the SIG Ultimate fun fly. It is a profile ultimate that is pretty simple to build and flys great. And it is a pretty tough plane that will take some abuse. Just keep it simple to start.