Im in the process of building a Rascal 40 and purchased a OS .40 LA to power it. However, Im really having questions as to whether Im going to be happy with the 40. Dont get me wrong, Im still pretty new to rc and im not likely to be trying to hover the thing, but i really dont want to have an underpowered plane. What do you guys think? Should I order a bigger engine? Ive already mounted to 40 so I guess i would need to stick with OS so the holes will line up. Please let me know what you think. Thanks

I have a couple of 40 LA's and they just sit there cause the engines have no power. They are fine in a small trainer but the Rascal is an aerobatics plane that's alot of fun to fly. My Rascal has a Saito 56 in it for power, can you say hover. Do yourself a favor and put in a 4c, at least a 52.

The first Rascal that I built had an OLD worn out OS 40 four stroke in it that flew the plane NICE. It would do consecutive loops without loosing much altitude till you got sick...Inside AND Outside! The wing loading on this plane is very nice. I'd recommend trying out the 40 LA. I've been using one with a 11x4 APC on my funfly for awhile with great results. I think you will be pleased. OH by the way also be sure to use a OS #8 plug it'll smooth out the transition on the LA since the low end is pretty much always rich and non adjustable.

I built my Rascal with a saito 56 and it is a blast to fly. Especially in the windy conditions we have here in Texas. If you want to stay with a 2 stroke, at least an FX .46 or something of that performance.


My thoughts.........


Michael

The problem with a 2 stroke in this plane you will have to cut a big hole in the side of the cowl to fit the muffler. Besides a 4c is much reliable inverted than 2 c.

I will definately agree a 2c inverted is a ROYAL pain in the A#%! That alone would make me pick a 4c for the plane if you have the money. The second one I built has a Saito 56 in it which I've flown a lot and it's a blast. However if you aren't looking to hover the plane the LA won't be lame AND it's only $65 whereas a 56 Saito is gonna cost ya $200 new. If the cowl is cut for the 2c muffler try it out, you have nothing to loose. Otherwise you might consider a 4c.

Yeah the sides already been cut for the 2 stroke muffler.

Arghhhhhhhhhhh........OK let me calm down.....don't forget to fuelproof ALL the wood exposed by hacking away at the cowl. OH the shame!

All you need is a little CA fiberglass material and some patience, rebuild it, we have the technology....or simply reduce the cowling on all sides, the cowling is a pain anyhow....it was a pain getting the sait 56 in the stock cowling......

Ok, now I feel bad. No one ever informed me that 2 strokes dont do well inverted. Is it going to be a problem? What can i expect from an inverted 2 stroke?

They can run a little too rich at the low end, simply break the engine in and work with the throttle richness setting, not just the needle valve setting.

I put in a remote glow-plug lead and a fuel dot, I don't think you'll have any trouble.


Michael

Whats a fuel dot?

It's a third line to your tank, it leads to a plug, or dot, on the fuse, pull the plug and fill the plane, its makes life sooooo much easier:


http://www.pspmfg.com/fueldots.htm

http://webpages.charter.net/mediasho...-fuel-dots.htm

This guy makes it very clear.....


Michael

Thanks for all the info. I dont suppose anyone has a page that would detail how to close up the hole in the fuselage if I decide to go with a 4 stroke.

Take the plane to your local, quality, hobby store, they will show you, but you can also modify the cowling, cut is symmetrically and have more access to your engine without filling the hole. I will post a pic tonight when I get home from work of the cowling...


Michael

Just get a piece of balsa the same thickness as the cowl and cut it to fit. Patch in some covering and you'll be good to go.