Woo Hoo!! Finally finished the Rascal and got a chance to break in the new 46AX engine. I mounted the engine sideways instead of inverted for less hassles although it was a challenge to figure out how to do this. I went with a spare Sullivan tail wheel assembly because I had one and it was easier to hook up and I went with larger 3" wheels as well. It was pretty windy all day but after I broke in the engine I tried some taxi tests. The plane handles well on the ground and wasn't as bothered by the wind as I thought it would be. So I pointed it into the wind and throttled up. I was slowly throttling up and tail lifted up and then the plane took off all within about 15 feet at about 1/3 throttle! I made some easy circuits and then tried some basic stuff. The ailerons were set per the book which looks like lots but this produced a slow roll rate that reminded me of an LT40! Flew for 5 minutes and throttled back to land. The plane floated in nicely and remained controllable down to a slow walking speed. The plane settled down on the mains lightly with almost no roll out due to the slow forward speed. I moved the controls in 1 hole on the ailerons for more response and turned the clevice in 3 turns to keep the ailerons level with the wing. The next take off was as easy as the first and the roll rate was much better. Inverted flight is very easy with this plane. I tried a loop and the wind caught it making about a 200 feet diameter loop due to the 18 km winds. The plane flys as fast as my other sport planes but will float across the sky with the throttle just above idle. The wing looks like a big white line that was easy to keep track of in the air. Its a keeper and I have to thank my wife(again) for buying for me for my birthday.

Thanks for the flight report. Very enjoyable and it is increasing my enthusiasm for finding my ARF in the garage and getting it assembled.

I have several engines that I would like to try in the Rascal 40. The first being an ASP .61 four-stroke and the second being an Enya .53 four-stroke. Both should provide good power for this beautiful model.

I saw a Rascal .40 flying at my old club field that was powered by a GS-40 Super Tigre. I was very impressed at how quickly the model was flying and how smooth it flew. It's a sport ship that is capable of floating around when throttled back, but it is also great for sport aerobatics with enough control throw.

The Rascal line of models are going to be classics. They have "the look" and they are excellent flyers.


Ed Cregger

Hi Ed, either engine should work well with this plane as its very light for its size and has lots of wing area. I took mine out today and this time it was dead calm. The speed of the plane today was incredible. The new engine is speeding up with more run time and after the second flight I was chasing and catching up to a 1/4 scale extra that was flying at the field. Once I caught up I was matching speed and maneuvers with him. Made for a fun day!

Ed,

I had a Rascal 40 a few years ago. I originally had an old OS 48 Surpass for power. That lil engine worked real well in the nose; it could take off at half throttle without a problem.

For some reason I decided to put a Magnum 52 4S up there. I think I had it swinging a 12X6, but I'm not positive about the prop. The 52 was a lot of power for that plane. I remember when they first came out guys were putting 100 4S on the nose, talk about over kill.

Personally I think the 53 will do great in the Rascal; but if you go with the 61 remember to use throttle control.

I use to love to do flat turns with this plane. Had to use a bit of aileron to keep it flat with that rudder. I also had to put a glow driver on to slow down the engine for landings. Without it the plane would chug on by at about three feet off the ground at idle. Looked really cool when it did, but was a pain to land with that floating.

I would like to get another one.

Happy flying.

Salty, I would suggest if you are thinking of getting another Rascal, then don't wait too long. It seems any time a nice new ARF comes out it doesn't stay in production long and you can't get it anymore. []

I often wish I hadn't sold mine. It's a great windy weather plane, fun to fly backwards, etc. I can't imagine a 1.00 4 stroke in one, unless the front end was modified. When I first got mine, I was planning on a .65 Saito. The crankcase was too wide for the wooden mounting rails, so I went with a .56, which was perfect, both in fit and power. I used a 12-6 MA prop. My only wish was like my wish for many ARF's, that it was available as a kit. I re-covered mine with Solartex after skinning up the original plastic.

One day I might pick up one of the 110 size versions. I got to fly one and thought it was even easier than the 40 size. This has to be one of the better all-around ARF's out there.

Hi Salty. I think that most of us have had models that we are sorry that we sold or otherwise lost. I know I have. My Goldberg Cub with Enya 80-4C was one of them. I have since bought other Cubs and other Enya 80 & 604C engines, but it isn't quite the same. Perhaps it was also that moment in the time of our lives that made a significant contribution to the experience?

Thanks for the report on the OS.48 in the Rascal 40 airframe. I wouldn't have thought that there would be that much of a difference in power between the OS FS-48 and the Magnum .52 four-stroke, but there is a generational difference between the OS FS-48 and FS-52, so maybe Magnum copied that too. It would account for the significant difference in power that you are reporting. I've owned the Magnum .52 and the .61 and couldn't really see much of a difference between the two. Might have just been my samples. Who knows? Anyway, theoretically at least, one would think that the .61 would handle more prop without protest than the .52. Theoretically. 8&gt


Ed Cregger

khodges, I used to fly my Falcon 56 backwards in the wind. I used to perform figure eights overhead while keeping the nose pointed in the same direction all the while, so I know of which you speak.

I suspect that Fastsky is right. If we really love the Rascals, we should buy up a few spares. I'm going to do that tonight. I have one 40 and one 110 NIB Rascals. I think I'm going to buy at least one more 40, in the opposite color, just for kicks.


Ed Cregger

I think the difference was due to the 48 being a LOT older than the 52, and the difference in the prop sizes. I still have that old 48, sitting in a Waco 30 right now.

I do regret selling that plane. I sold it to a restaurant owner that hung it up for display. For some reason I had for so long I was afraid of crashing it so I sold it; kicked myself as I was walking away. I went to back to look at it a few times.

I actually was thinking of getting the larger 110 version instead of the 40. But there are so many models out there that I would love to have and with about 15 in the hangar right now it is hard to justify to the wife. Maybe when she starts working and the money isn't so tight I can sneak in another UPS shipment without her knowing. But I have never done that before.

I have been noodling with the idea of using my Evolution 26GT Phase I engine in my Rascal 110. I have a tuned pipe for it, not that I want it to go very fast in particular. Just thought it might look neat and might quiet it down a bit.

Ed Cregger