<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; ">hello greetings I take just a short time flying and want to be constructing to an airplane low-mounted wing concretely like kits of SIG the STAR HOG who motor goes to him stops to put to him to this airplane. I have irvine 46 it goes to him or or he is little motor for this airplane greetings from SPAIN to all the pilots.</span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; ">
</span></div>

The Irvine 46 is too small.

You want a 60 2-stroke, or a 91 4-stroke

60 - 75 two stroke or 91 four stroke

mine using a Chipmunk canopy

thanks i like asp 61

Hello. The Astrohog is on the heavy side if you build it from the Sig kit. I have built two. Both had Saito 82 four stroke engines. I also have an 80% size Astro hog which was built from a scaled down plan. It is quite light for its size and is prefect with a Saito 40 four stroke. A friend has a similar one flying with a 25 two stroke.

I think your Irvine 46 will be too small for the Hog if you build it from a kit.

The Sig Four Star series comes in 40, 60 and 120 sizes. I have all of them. My 40 size has a 62 Saito, my 60 has a 100 Saito and my 120 has a 150 Saito. I have previously built a Four Star 40 with a Super Tigre 40 and it flew quite well but it was faster than I wanted. I find the four strokes work best. Also, my Four Star 60, which now has a 100 in it, used to have a Saito 72 in it. It flew perfectly well with the 72 but is more fun with the 100.

Cheers

Mike in Australia

Mine was built per plans. It weighed 3.57 kg (7 pounds 14 ounces) with an OS .70 four stroke. It flew very well with that engine. My brother has a .91 four stroke on his and it also flies very well.

I have an ASP .61 two stroke on one plane and would not hesitate to use it on an AStro Hog.

My hog is powered with the Magnum .90 4 stroke engine. IMO it's a good match.

DaveB

My Astro Hog kit calls out a .35 engine, but it is an original Berkeley kit. That was the size of engines used in 1958 when the Astro Hog was the top stunt ship winning the Nats for two years running.

How does the Hog fly? Is it stable?

Yes, it is very stable.
I'd say it 'could' be a primary trainer, with the right instructor, for a student who learns quickly. Of course you don't know how quickly a student will learn until training begins.

Thanks. I'm looking for another box of sticks to add to the collection.

My Hog has a Saito 82,

Bob

Our Hog has an OS .70 in it and it's a perfect match for this plane. It quickly became my son's favorite one to fly. Designed when planes flew on wings not power, it fills that spot nicely.

Mine is powered by an OS 61sf. Plenty of power.

A friend in our group is flying one with an OS .91 four stroke. Perfect combination.

I have flown mine with a Super Tigre 75, really a little too much motor.

I'm now working it with an old OS FS-60 4 stroke, and the motor has to be right on to give enough power for fun slow flight. Aerobatics are of the slow roll and loop variety, no 3D for sure.

I would go with a good .60 two stroke.

Engine?

.61 2 stroke = astro hog that sounds like a bumble bee, barely gets off grass, and a big oily mess before you head on home.

.91 os 4 stroke = astro hog that sounds more realistic, plenty of power for take-off, better fuel economy and 1 paper towel to clean oil off.

have fun

Bigdan, I agree with you, if I had a spare 4 stroke, I would have it on this one. Why do you think the blond pilot is in a full canopy? It takes a whole can of Prell to fix her hair after a flight...

(see pics above)

G'day


My new Astrohog had it first flight yesterday. It has a Saito 82 in the nose. Plenty of power even though the engine is new and running on the rich side.

I built my first one as a tail dragger and it was fine but this one is built as a trike. I can only say that the trike is easier to take off, though it still wants to go left, but the landings are really great. I came in a bit fast on the first landing but once she touched the ground she just stuck there. No bounce at all. Second landing was a little slower but very similar. No bounce.

I am hoping to get it in the air again today.

Cheers

Mike in Oz