Sig Rascal 40 ARF
#26
Senior Member
My Feedback: (5)
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: warren,
OH
I haven't seen a rascal up close as yet but couldn't the nose be cut off and a radial mount installed to be able to mount engine side ways?I'm sure fiberglass specialies would have a cowl for it or will soon.Or just build up a new nose from balsa .
Just my opinion ,guys that have assembled one would know if thiswould be a possibility .
Ken
Just my opinion ,guys that have assembled one would know if thiswould be a possibility .
Ken
#27
Senior Member
My Feedback: (4)
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Lenexa,
KS
I don't know about you but cutting off the nose is more trouble than it's worth. The motor mounts are two longeron hardwood sticks that go back into the main fuse area aka it has no stress holding firewall. The other thing is after you see the "cowling" you won't want to hack it up cause it looks REAL nice. The only pain is getting the motor mounted. The one I built had a 40 OS four stroke and getting motor, fueling valve, choke, fuel lines, throttle linkage, and crankcase vent in there took some trial and error but it all looked neat in the end. The motor probably took 3 hours to finish and the whole plane only takes about 6 hours I'd say. The Saito 56 would be WILD and I think the 72 would just be overkill BUT it doesn't weigh much more so if you throttle back it'll probably be just fine. It's just a FUN plane so I wouldn't go to much work changing anything, it's pretty nice just the way it is. Of course that's just my opinion.
#28
Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: KY
I am crazy about mine. I have a YS63 with a 3 blade 12x6 Master Airscrew prop and it will do almost anything I can think of. The vertical stops after about 100 feet. Everything else is fantastic. I came from a LT40 with the same engine and it was no problem adjusting to the Rascal. The only thing I had to change was the wing incidence. It had a problem staying level with full power. It wanted to climb. I added 1/8" to the rear fuselage to lower the incidence. When I bring it by 5' off the ground 20' in front of me it gives me goose bumps.
What a AIRCRAFT!!!!!!!
What a AIRCRAFT!!!!!!!
#29

My Feedback: (512)
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Zebulon,
NC
Does anyone fly with the 2 peice wing like the instructions say to do? I was thinking about gluing mine as im worried about it not being strong enough?
Also one of my wing hold down blind nuts did not have any threads in it either, just smooth.
Also one of my wing hold down blind nuts did not have any threads in it either, just smooth.
#31
Thread Starter

My Feedback: (64)
I flew mine fairly aggressively with the stock wing setup with no signs of trouble whatsoever. I also lived the convenience of it. I recently sold the plane as I am trying to go larger but would recommend this plane to almost anyone begginner to expert. It looks great, is built well and fantastic to fly. The 2 piece wing was very convenient also. cbk
#32
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Woodland Hills ,
CA
Now that this plane has been flying around for a while. How do you like it ? I was wondering if any problems have developed ?
I have been thinking of adding the Rascal 40 to my hanger. Debating between the Rascal or GP Space Walker. The Rascal would be easier to transport.
Thanks,
Gary
I have been thinking of adding the Rascal 40 to my hanger. Debating between the Rascal or GP Space Walker. The Rascal would be easier to transport.
Thanks,
Gary
#33
Junior Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Utah
I love mine! It is the most fun plane I fly. Have a Saito 65 in it, but it is way more power than required for this pretty ship. It looks great, holds up well, and was a breeze to assemble. I'm flying it with the stock wing set up, and it is easy to transport and plenty strong........wonderful plane!
#35
Junior Member
My Feedback: (10)
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Farmington,
NY
I mounted my Saito .72 inverted, as per the instructions. Any other configuration would absolutly butcher the pretty nose on this airplane. I have no problems with low throttle flame-out in the inverted position(I am using S&W 25% fuel-the Saito loves it!). The only mod I made was a remote glow plug clip. This is a very worthwhile model to spend some quality time with!
Good Luck...
Good Luck...
#36

My Feedback: (2)
Peter Y. Unfortunately the motor has to be mounted inverted. Unless you are willing to cut off the nose of the airplane. There is no cowl. The nose of the plane is a continuous sheet. Two spars pass thru the firewall and are used for the motor mounts. These spars are quite close to the top of the sheeting, making it difficult to cut them off and save the existing nose sheeting. If you did cut the nose off you would have to reinforce the firewall.
I love the way mine flys. Using a TT46 Pro and a 11X5 APC prop.
John
I love the way mine flys. Using a TT46 Pro and a 11X5 APC prop.
John
#37
Me and a friend just bought one of these yesterday, mine blue his red, for a little formation flying. For right now we plan on powering them with Thunder Tiger .54 4 strokes. Should be a lot of fun. It's a great looking ARF, can't wait to get started.
Only one thing I can see right now that I'm going to change, the plastic push rods. I'm going to replace them with Carbon Fiber, strong as all heck, and they don't expand and contract with temp. changes like the plastic one do.
Only one thing I can see right now that I'm going to change, the plastic push rods. I'm going to replace them with Carbon Fiber, strong as all heck, and they don't expand and contract with temp. changes like the plastic one do.



