Hoping you can help with my decision. I am getting back into glow aircraft (from glow to electric to glow again) and want either the rascal or 4 * 40, possibly both.

At the moment I have an OS 52 Surpass and all running gear, just need a airframe. Trouble is the rascal is on back order, with no firm ETA and they only have 2 4* 40 kits available.

I like low and high wing and prefer a tail dragger. If you had a choice which one would you get and why?

This will be my first SIG kit, I hope the kit is as good as people say.


Regards,

Rob.

Would love to see a Rascal fly but one has not shown up at our field (yet!). I have flown a buddys 4* when he got tired of me asking him how it flys. It flys pretty good! You wouldn't be sorry if you got one. Have you looked at the Midstar? Its a mid wing that flys better than the 4* and has a more substantial body. The 4* is pretty is miniscual looking compared to it. The mid star is set up so that it can be built as either a tail dragger or a trike. I just built one and am waiting for a rain free weekend to test fly it. [8D]

Have seen the Rascal at a few hobby shops, you may want to call and see if yours has it in stock. I know that Graves hobbies, in Orlando, usually has them and will ship. They are very competitive with their prices as well. The link for them is http://www.gravesrc.com
Hope this helps.

It really depends on what you want in a plane. Both of these are terrific models. The Rascal has that great, classic look about it, and your 52 4stroke is about perfect for it. The 4* 40 has a bit broader flight envelope, more aerobatic and still easy flying. Your 52 will fly it well, but you might want a bit more power for some of the more aggressive maneuvers if that is your flying style. The Rascal would not benefit a lot from more power, as it doesn't lend itself to aggressive flying.

Either way, you won't go wrong.

I have a Rascal 40 with a Saito 40 and it's a sweet flyer. It's slow on maneuves, but that's the nature of the design. The 4*40 is also a good flyer. As 4*'s go, the 60 size flies better IMHO.
They're both very good planes.

I have both. I like the Rascal the best. Using a OS 52 , and a little Aileron differential and it flies great.

I had a Rascal with a Surpass 48 and a Magnum 52, I also had a 4*60 with a Magnum 75 two stroke installed. I really enjoyed both of them. If I had to pick one I would say I miss the Rascal the most.

And I agree with Jim, the Rascal wouldn't benefit from a larger engine; I put a 61 four stroke in it for about two weekends. I enjoyed the 52 much better in flight then the 61. I did have to install a glow driver on the 52 to get a low enough idle for landings. Before the driver I had to cut power about half way on the down leg and it would still go about half way down the runway before it would settle on the runway.

The Rascal always got the comments when I would bring it to the field.

I'm on my second Rascal (1st was my second plane, steep learning curve) and it's my daily driver, always take it to the field. Does smooth aerobatics, but roll rate can be timed on a calendar, even with all the throw you can put in it. Does a wonderful flat spin, is pretty quick with a .56 Saito / 12-6 MA prop, but will fly at a walking pace. I noticed that I always had a lot of fuel left even after 15 minute flights, because it will fly at such low throttle settings, so I finally flew it til I deadsticked----over 35 minutes powered flight, plus another couple of minutes gliding around from about 300 feet.

It's so easy to fly, I think you could use one for a trainer. I agree with Jim that the 4-Star 40 is a bit more aerobatically capable, and faster (we pylon race them in our club), but I don't think the fun factor is any better than the Rascal. I also agree that a bigger engine doesn't do any better, I think a .50 size 4 stroke is the perfect power plant for it. I've hovered mine into a 10 mph wind to an almost vertical landing, and if you catch a thermal on a hot day, you can kill the engine and soar with it. Great plane, I'll always have one in my hangar.

Darn! This thread is costing me money. I recently bought a NIB Magnum 52 4 stroke at a swap meet, and I have been thinking about what plane to put it on. Now, (with a little help) I have convinced myself to put it on a Sig Rascal. Ordered it last night.

RCU can be a bad influence on us more susceptible types.

Hi Jim ..You wont regret getting the Sig Rascal 40,had one for four years now,also got the 110 version also a great flyer. Have sig Rascal C,which is electric and very relaxing to fly.
Best of luck with your choice......

HAhahaha Nice one Jim, I wish it as easy to order kits here in Australia. The only Hobby Store in Australia said that they were now on back order with no known ETA...........[&o]

I REALLY like the lines of the rascal, just what i was looking for. Enjoy your new kit Jim, seeing you are so easily led maybe you could buy me a kit and send it over

Regards,


Rob

737

There are a couple of guys flying the 40 Rascal at my field, and I have been hankering for one for years. However, this thread got me to act on it. Finally.

Hang in there for when yours comes through. I'm sure it will be worth the wait.

Jim-- You're gonna love it. If you haven't flown theirs, a word of advice when you set yours up. It may not look it, but the elevator and rudder are very sensitive, start out with minimum recommended throw and maybe add some expo. I'd also add a tail brace (like a Cub) to the H.stab, just because the stab is very wide with a narrow chord and the fuse is kind of skinny back there. Also add some carbon fiber strip to the pillar between the windshield and side windows, if you ever land hard and catch a wingtip, those are the first thing to break (ask me how I know this..........times three)

It is very rudder sensitive on takeoff and needs good rudder control to stay straight until you rotate, gently roll the throttle on, with a .56 you only need about half anyway to take off.

If there weren't so many other planes I wanted, I'd have to try the 110 version. Oh, BTW, the Rascal would make a helluva floatplane, even has the rear hardpoint with blind nuts already built in.

Thanks for the comments. I have seen the reinforcement on the cabin pillars you described, and it's probably a lot better to do that as "prevention" rather than "repair". The tail brace is a good idea. It is fragile looking back there, and I will definately put in bracing.

Thanks for the tips.