ORIGINAL: rclement
Well, That's a mouthfull. What is the point of this rambling? Does this mean that flyers out there have to buy and fly older planes just because they have been around longer? The Pulse is just a newer plane with fresher thoughts put into the design and obviously since it's designed different it's going to fly somewhat different and look different. I have owned both and flown both and would rather have the Pulse anyday. It has more features and is a newer design and doesn't look like an out dated crop duster. "Veggie Burger?" Yeah right! Whatever!
What is different or fresh about the Pulse? It's just a Four Star clone with a cowling thrown on it. It fills a need in Hangar 9's product lineup, so in that respect it's certainly useful to Hangar 9. If you're going to copy an airframe design, the Four Star is certainly a good source to draw from. The Phoenix Models Dolphin .40 is another good Four Star derivative, and would be a good choice for someone's second airplane.
I wasn't telling flyers what they "have to buy," I'm merely suggesting that erring on the side of a time-tested design is usually a good idea if you're trying to decide between a couple of different airplanes. How does the Pulse XT hold up after three or four seasons of flying? Nobody knows, because it hasn't been available for three or four seasons.
ORIGINAL: opjose
So then we should limit the choices of available "ARF's" to only those that "have withstood the test of time"?
And forgo all low wing lightly loaded planes like the Pulse, Super Sportster, etc.?
IMHO the "Classics" are just that. You can fly a stick if you wish, or you can purchase something else.
If I want to fly a classic I fly one, when I don't I don't.
Why do we or anyone for that matter HAVE to pay homage to the history of aviation?
Why do we HAVE to care?
It's up to individual choice. If you're interested, you do so.
The Pulse is not an inferior plane, it handles well and it lands at a walking speed ( I don't know why Insane says it has a higher landing speed than others, but it slows down to land FAR better than most sticks as the wing loading is so low... ).
Why get so upset that people are not necessarily choosing your first choice?
I guess I'll go eat my "Veggie Burger" and avoid those nasty clogged arteries...
Again, I never tried to tell anybody what they could or could not buy. The original poster was trying to decide between a classical airframe design or one of its modern imitators, I was simply making the argument for choosing the time tested design. The Pulse XT is a nice looking, nice flying aircraft and I'm glad that rcelment and opjose are enjoying theirs.
Telling somebody that they should fly the Pulse XT instead of the Four Star, however, is like telling somebody that they should watch "The Longest Yard" with Adam Sandler instead of the original movie starring Burt Reynolds because the new movie was recorded with a Dolby Digital soundtrack. Watch whichever one you want, or don't watch either. My only point was that "new and shiny" rarely translates into "better" especially when evaluating quality. If an airframe design wasn't really good, however, it wouldn't be able to thrive in the marketplace year after year in spite of the constant barrage of new designs and advertising campaigns.
Everybody knows that the Four Star is a time-tested quality design. Hopefully the Pulse XT will stand the test of time as well.