Opinions... is an LA .40 going to be enough engine for a Rascal .40? I know, the plane deserves a 4-stroke, but I have the OS lying around. It's a good little runner, and I'm trying to do this somewhat on the budget side.

Andy

I think the 40 will be plenty of power for normal flying and standard aerobatics (this plane is superb at slow rolls and knife edge flight).

I flew my Rascal 40 for several months with a Thunder Tiger GP42, which is a similar sleeve bearing / air bleed carburetor engine. Even here at 5000 feet it climbed out with authority. Unfortunately, I was never able to tune in a reliable idle with this engine in the inverted postion and the high tank centerline.

I lost patience with the idle problem (and I wanted a bit more power for float flying) so I stuffed in a Saito 72 four stroke a couple of weeks ago. That seems to be a wonderful engine for this airplane, but it is certainly not a budget minded choice.

Greg

I fly my Rascal 40 with a Saito .50 and standard servos. Is extremely well balanced with plenty of power with a 11x7 Graupner prop. Great plane, coupling of rudder with ailerons makes it very responsive in flight, but turn the coupling off on landing approach or suitable aerobatics as rudder is small but very effective. The LA 40 should be plenty, but it does fly better with the larger diameter prop that the 4 stroke allows.

To elaborate on the point made by Sunfly3, the ailerons are adequate for normal flying but are rather ineffective for aerobatics. You need to use both rudder and ailerons when you want (or need) fast roll rates.

This may be a taste issue as some guys like more realistic (scale-like) aileron response, which the Rascal delivers. I am used to aerobatic planes and I like to be able to roll very quickly. This plane taught me to use the rudder for something other than crosswind landings and knife edge.

Greg