*SIG Rascal 40*
 

Was thinking about putting a Thunder Tiger GP42 on the Sig Rascal 40. Enough power? Also, will the airplane do inverted and knife edge flight with this engine?

Thanks,

Glowfuel

RE: *SIG Rascal 40*
 

I Just got rid of a Rascal 40 It had a OS .46 and was more power than it needed so the engine you are talking about will be Plenty, as far as inverted not very good too much Dihedral. Never tried to Knife
Edge it.

RE: *SIG Rascal 40*
 

My Rascal flies knide edge circuits around the field

RE: *SIG Rascal 40*
 

rc-sport:

With what engine??????


Glowfuel

RE: *SIG Rascal 40*
 

I have a Rascal 40 that started life with a GP42. It was plenty of power even at our 5000 ft altitude. Not unlimited vertical, but plenty for this type of plane. This plane is the easiest plane to knife edge I have ever owned. Very effective rudder and large, flat fuse sides. My only complaint is that I wish the ailerons were more effective.

The Rascal is on floats for now. The GP42 had enough power to fly it with floats as well, but I changed it out for a Saito 72 four stroke to improve idle reliability. I just could not get a consistant idle out of the GP42 on the Rascal. You don't want a float plane with idle problems.

Greg

RE: *SIG Rascal 40*
 

I have a racal 40 with a mangum 46 it flys knife edge very well i had to replace the
engine mount beams with ones made from stronger metal and beef up the landing gear
block. other than that it is a nice plane most people are impressed with the knife edge
and general all around flying ability.

RE: *SIG Rascal 40*
 

I have the Rascal 40 flying with an Irvine 46. The plane required one click of right and one of down trim for hands off at 100% power. This thing is fast and flies very well at half throttle. Will do great knife edge and inverted with very little trim held in. The rudder is effective and seems to induce a bit of roll coupling. I set the Ailerons with differential before the first flight. Axial rolls are very smooth with a slight altitude loss by the third roll. My son (age 34) loves flying it flat out at low altitude. His opinion is the Irvine does not have as much power of the OS 46FX. He suggested changing out the engine over the winter. The idea of squeezing another engine in that tight nose does not thrill me.

All in all, IMHO it is an excellent ARF that is a enjoyable to fly.

Tom

RE: *SIG Rascal 40*
 

Talk about overpowered-- I've got a Rascal 40 that I have a .56 Saito in,the plane weighs over a pound more than it did out of the box (crashed and rebuilt, re-covered with heavier mat'l and 2.5 oz nose weight to balance, and aluminum spinner), and I can go vertical off the runway a couple hundred feet before it runs out of speed. (12-5 prop) What does it do with a .72? I realize floats add more weight, but still.....

Also, how did you get the .72 to fit between the engine mount rails. Is the case the same size as the .56 case? I believe it is, I know the .65 is larger, 'cause I tried to put one in mine at first and it was physically too big. I love how mine flies; it used to float forever, and after I rebuilt it and recovered it , I liked it even better with a little more weight (6.5 pounds without fuel). It does decent basic aerobatics, and I can do a little inverted, but haven't tried knife-edge.

How does it do with floats? When I crashed,I didn't think it was repairable, so I called my LHS and had them order me another. Then I fixed it anyway, so I have a brand-new in the box Rascal and I thought it would look good with floats so I decided to keep it and matbe build a set this winter for it. What size should I get (length), and is there one that is better than another (kit) I want to build them.

RE: *SIG Rascal 40*
 

I have a Sig Rascal 40 and love the plane. I powered mine with a MDS 48 and it was more than enough power.
I think this is one of the most smooth easy flying models I have. It will knife edge, inverted flight, roll etc.
The only thing it never did very well was land with power. I know MDS stands for more (dead stick landings) but it is such a pain to change engines with this type of mount I just got used to it.
It got to be kind of a joke at the field that I was working on being a sail plane pilot.
[8D]

RE: *SIG Rascal 40*
 

khodges,

The Rascal is okay as a float plane, not as easy to handle in the water as others I've flown (such as a Senior Kadet). The 72 is not nearly as overpowering as you would think at 5000 ft altitude. It was a tight squeeze, had to hollow out one "cheek" to clear the throttle linkage. I wish they would put a normal cowl and engine mount on it like they have on the 110.

By the way, I replaced the aluminum engine mount plates with steel. The aluminum fatigues and breaks no matter what engine you are using.

Greg

RE: *SIG Rascal 40*
 

Thanks for the info regarding making it a floatplane. I've decided to try and sell the new one I have as well as another unbuilt kit ( 1/4 Decathalon) and build a proper floatplane, a DeHavilland Beaver. I've wanted one of those for a while, any way.

RE: *SIG Rascal 40*
 

I found plans for a Beaver on floats. 60 size .If you are interested ,let me know . [email protected]
later,
jim
LMAC Lexington, KY

Regarding the - now smaller - Sig Rascal Forty with a Thunder Tiger .54 -

Encountering pitch coupling in knife edge and discomfort when inverted but it is capable.