Ok...so here goes...

Im not ready for the second plane yet...so im not so much into buying right now...

I may, or may not want to build it...

Here is what we're looking at.

I have a Saito .91, brand new but broken in...it was planned to go into my 4* 60...untill i had a bit of a mishap and my dog tripped me by the stairs and...well...3 minutes after i finished covering my wings and attaching the airlerons...they were forcively dis-assembled...so im in the market again...

I dont really want another 4 star...i like the plane...but it seems like everywhere you look, there is a 4 star now...

What I really like, is something like the Decathalon, high wing, no dihedral, but still floats the landings nicely...but i havent seen a 60-ish sized one...ive seen BIG and ive seen .40 size....is there one that im missing somwhere that this .91 can go in...

I really want a cowl...i love scale looks...and i actually do like high-wing planes as long as they have some aerobatic capabilities

So what are my options...like i said, im not ruling out building...but ARFs are great too...so either way....

And if i do build...its a kit...not plans...

rjm-

How about a Cub? If you built it with a clipped wing, it would have decent aerobatic capability. I built a Great Planes .60 Cub, which I fly with a Saito .91 (great motor!). I built the full wing version, which doesn't roll very fast, but flies inverted just fine. It was my first kit and second plane. It is a good kit with great instructions. It is relatively scale, but not not so scale that it is challenging to build.

I don't know that I would say a Decathlon "floats the landings." I have not flown one, so I can't offer an informed opinion, but my understanding is that they have a marked tendency to tip stall and need to be landed with some speed.

-Scott

I might just have to do a cub...and build it...it seems like an easy (and interesting) build...

I seen a decathalon last weekend (see attachment...i got a good shot if it as it touched down...)

It does float pretty well...i have a video of it deadsticked....it wasnt as slow as a trainer...but that was partially because of where he was at when the motor cut out...he had to get down quick...or put it in the beans...

I might have to try a cub though...i never thought about the clipped wing...actually, untill last weekend i never considred a high-wing...but after seeing the aerobatics and ---SPEED--- of that decathalon... i want a high wing now...plus its different...most everyone else at the club is low winged...

rjm-

I would imagine the floating ability of a Decathlon probably depends quite a bit on the particular kit.

If you are interested in the GP Cub kit, [link=http://www.greatplanes.com/manuals/gpma0162-manual.pdf]here [/link]is a link to the instruction manual. If you really wanted to be different, you could get a cowl for a Super Cub and kitbash it into a Super Cub instead of a J-3.

From what I've heard, the Sig 1/5 scale Cub is a very nice kit, but it is probably a little small for the .91.

-Scott

RJM1982,
I understand where you are going, but you might want to rethink about getting a Cub. Yes, they are a high wing airplane and may look like a trainer, but they definitely aren't one. They've got a few habits that can leave a less experienced pilot with their hands full. They are very sensitive on your take off. Plus, in turns there is a lot of adverse yaw that you will need to correct by coordinating using your rudder and ailerons when you turn. The bad habits of a Cub are nothing that can't be compensated for, but a lot of newer pilots don't have those skills to handle it yet.

The Decathlon is a totally different subject. Don't let the high wing fool you. These planes are pure aerobatic performers. I don't have a lot of experience with these so I don't want to say anything that may turn out to be wrong. I do know that Minnflyer did a review of the Seagull Models Decathlon which you can find here [link]http://www.rcuniverse.com/magazine/article_display.cfm?article_id=415[/link] . You may want to ask him how it performs

Hope this helps

Ken

Ken-

I was operating under the assumption that he is already flying a trainer and will be flying it for quite a while before moving on to a second plane. I would agree with what you say about Cubs, although the ground handling is certainly manageable, as is the adverse yaw with aileron differential and coordinated rudder. Once you get a Cub in the air, it's pretty easy to fly. I certainly think a Cub is a better second plane than a Decathlon, particularly for someone who is looking for "high wing" and "scale."

-Scott

Ken...it will be a 2nd and 1/2 plane...

Nexstar now...then when it starts getting boring, convert to taildragger, get rid of some dihedral, add flaps (not because it needs them..but why not....)

I know high-wing doesnt = easy flight...i just like its looks...and not alot of people have high-wing planes...

I dont want a 4-star for a second plane...seems thats always a suggestion...

Like i said, im not planning on buying anytime soon..but i want to start thinking about it...

That's kind of what I thought. Flying the Nexstar as a taildragger will be good training. If you want to build a kit, start building now. You will probably want that next plane before you actually have it built.

-Scott

RJM,
I wasn't telling you to not get a Cub or a Decathlon, I was just trying to let you know about them. I can't count how many people that think because a Cub has a high wing it flys like a trainer. I just didn't want you to get the plane and then be surprised by it.

I understand that you don't want a 4-star, but there are a lot of other planes out there that are great second planes.

Goldberg Tiger II
Bruce Thorpe Venture
Balsa USA Thunderbug (my favorite in this class of plane)
Sig Something Extra

There are others out there that also make good second planes, but I just wanted you to know that you have more choices than just a 4-star.

Ken

I like the SE...i really do...but i have that Saito .91 ... and there is no question that that motor would literally fly the wings off of that plane...

There is a reason for that

It flies docile, but can wring it out.... I increased the elevator anf rudder on mine.... field long KE passes, great flat spins, hovers fine....
I would rethink the 4*

I dunno...i might...just cause i cant find anything else i like for the 91....plus i have experience building it (mostly) ...

i might do it again..plus its reasonable at 90 bux...or i can get it arf and avoid the build...i just might still do it...i hate having to make decisions....

Or you could get the 4*60, or its twin the Bruce Tharpe Venture 60 and use your Saito .91. It would be perfect for those planes.

-Scott

The Venture 60 kit, or the Tiger 60 either ARF or Kit. You can even get the Tiger kit with retracts. I love the way the Tiger flies, they say the Venture is even nicer. Jagnweiner is right on.


http://www.btemodels.com/venture.html



Picture of my Tiger 60, SuperTigre .75 w/ UCanDo .60 wheel pants.

You are my hero! So refreshing to hear someone who is taking their time and thinking things out.

Something wth a cowl that will take a Saito .91 and still be a good second plane.

I have one ARF that comes to mind but it will be a handful at first.



This is the Kangke CAP 232-60 and looks "hotter" than it is. The wings are enlarged and it has gentle slow speed characteristics, so if you keep the throttle down and have an instructor or at least help getting it trimmed you should do OK with one.

For a kit I have just the model.

http://www.btemodels.com/venture.html

don't forget the citabria which is pretty much the same thing as the decathlon. I can't remember what sizes they come in though.

i might do the venture....it looks nicer...alot like the 4* but somehow a little nicer...i just cant put my finger on whats different...

Actually...while reading about the venture...i seen the Flying King...i may grab it instead....its a good platform for experimentation later...i like it....plus is has flaps (i know...extra stuff to break...but hey, i like'm)

rjm-

I don't know that you'd gain a whole lot with the Flyin' King over your NexStar converted to tail-dragger with flaps activated. Both will be good platform for experimentation.

Re: what you like about the Venture. My guess is it's a couple things: It has a rounded deck behind the engine, it has a better looking canopy than the 4*, it's wingtips look better and it is shown with optional wheel pants. Basically, it is a better looking version of the 4*. A lot of people who have built the Venture remove one bay from each side of the wing for faster rolls. Everybody says it's a great kit.

-Scott

rjm1982 ?? you finished a good build but it did'nt make a madein flight. an thinkin of another, you sound like my son. FIX IT
after you fly it you will love it. wonder what you were thinkin! now you can make a good second choice. Note IMHO cowles and learning a new engine are not a good mix may take all the fun out.

I had the wings finished and covered...then broke them into splinters...beyond fixing...and if im going to rebuild an entire wing...i might as well consider other options...

call sig price out and arf wing well worth the effort, get it in the air all us 4* owners Iam sure will agree

The U Can Do is an awesome plane. I am flying the 46 size with a Saito 82 and it rocks. The thing glides better than my Superstar trainer. Don't know but I bet the 91 is enough engine for the 90 sized one.

The plane at low rates is very docile and anyone could land the thing. High rates it will do amazing things.

Micheal

Note the huge grin each time I fly...

I thought about the u-can-do...but then i seen it fly and land (if you call it that) in a decent wind...it looked fun to fly, but the landing was a nightmare because its so light...its doesnt have alot of authority against the wind...it was the same day that that decathalon was landing perfect, along with an edge, 300s, texan and a few others were flying and landing well...

Another thing about the UCD's is that the landing gear are fragile and don't take too well to rough landings. If you're still on a second plane you can pretty much plan on ripping the landing gear out of it at least once. I'm not arguing that these aren't great planes, because they are great at what they were designed for which is 3D flying. I'm saying that they really aren't good as a second plane. A second plane really needs to be called an intermediate trainer. Which means that it trains the pilot on more advanced flying then the first trainer did. But like your first trainer it needs to be sturdy enough to take some rough handling, which it will definitely get.

RJM, sorry to climb on a soapbox here, just wanted to get that out.

Ken