I've got a 4*40 and it's a great plane (I'm also finishing up a Sig SE). I'd also suggest the 4*, and THEN get the SE. The 4*40 is a Good plane. I love mine. It's got a TT Pro 40 in it with a 10-6 zinger prop.

If you go for the 40-version, there are a couple of things you might want to watch (if you are making a kit-built plane). The kit is now laser cut (which is good). However, the notches cut in the ribs for the 3/16" wing spars seemed a little loose to me. I cut tiny pieces of 1/64" plywood and put them in the rib's spar cutout. Perfect fit. Just make sure that you get CA on both sides of the shim for a good joint.

One other area to look at is the wooden nut plates for the wing hold-down screws where they attach to the fuse. Sig gives the builder some balsa triangle stock for reinforcement. This didn't last after my first rough landing (high wind, and the plane cartwheeled). I have some small pieces of pine in there now for reinforcement. No problems.

I was a little concerned about the 3/16" wing spars, but the plane's been flying for several months now and no problems. I've been putting it through its paces.

Overall, I love the plane. Sig made another really nice design. Glad they turned it into a laser cut kit.

Just my $.02

Bob

Hey Starlancer,
That's the LOGICAL thing to do... I used to be logical once - until I got into this hobby.

Dreams and ideas - that's what's going on here. Can't you smell the wood burning?? He's getting his second plane going while learning on his first one.

He who dies with the most toys wins!

Bob

If he's wanting a second plane before he flys the first... He's already hooked.

The Four Star and Smethin' Extra fly somewhat differently form each other. I woldn't say one's a better plane than the other... they are designed for different styles of flying.

The SE is less inherantly stable and quicker to respond than the 4*. For a second plane, the 4* is usually a better choice.

When the 4* starts to get "boring" you can clip the wing down and be about halfway between the stock 4* and the SE in maneuverability. (I never found my 4* boring though...)

My biggest recomendation with the 4* is use the longest, lowest pitch prop practical. I was using an APC 11 X4 and a Magnum .40 XL. I never had problems slowing down to land after switching from the 10X6 to the 11X4, and the plane was able to do continuous inside-outside vertical 8's for as long as I wanted. (or as long as I didn't goof and cause it to veer out...)

I was at the field today and a guy brought in his second plane - a Sig Somethin' Extra.

He had a OS-46LA in it, so the SE wasn't a fire-breather. Powered like that, the plane behaved nicely. He's a new flier, but pretty competent. He liked it a lot - it didn't pull any tricks on him. He also mentioned that he set up the plane for the minimum recommended throws.

If you do opt for the SE, you might want to think about sticking with a mild engine at first, then perhaps drop a bigger engine in it later as hour skills improve.

I'm going to have my SE finished up in a couple weeks, but when I do it will have an Irvine .46 in it with a 11-8 prop, or a 10-7 3-bladed prop. But I'm practicing on my 4*40 and TT Pro .40 combo right now, and having a blast with it. I'll feel more capable of jumping up to my SE now, after practicing with the 4*40.

Just a second thought.

And StarLancer, he who dies without toys didn't have any fun at all :-D

Bob


Bob

Hey iloveflying,
I agree with you. Good way to go. I'm planning on putting in a Irvine .46 in mine with a 10-7 3-blade prop.

One guy at our field has powered his SE with a OS-46LA. With that engine, it's a gentle flier. I was surprised. I think that the SE would fly nicely with whatever engine you put into it.

Bob

I expect the 10X7 3-blade to be a heavy load on a .46. (right on the edge of too much prop for any plane with that engine) It probably will be too much... A 10X7 2-blade is a normal prop for a .46. You usually have to drop an inch of diameter,and/or one to 2 inches of pitch vs the 2-blade prop you'd use.
(change more for bigger engines... the 1 inch pitch for 1 inch dia, and other prop load equivilency "guess-timates" are based on .35 to .40 engines..)

FHHUBER,
I can't disagree with you totally. Under normal circumstances I would agree that a 10-7 2-blade is a pretty good load for a .46.

However, in looking over the Irvine specs, I found that the lightest prop that this engine wants to see is a 10-8. And, it lists heavier props in the 11" and 12" range. The Irvine spec sheet doesn't even list a 10-6 or 10-7 prop.

So, I decided to try the 3-blade prop. I think I was mainly looking for an excuse to see what a 3-blade prop would be like in a plane. If it doesn't work, I have a 10-8 and an 11-7 for the Irvine. I also expect the torque to be different for a 3-blade prop.

Has anyone else tried this combo???? I'd be curious in your feedback, though we are getting far away from the original question here...

Bob


Bob

To get back on track, here's my 2 cents..

(Anyone talk about 1 bladed props?!)

Go for teh 4 star. i loved mine, and am planing a second very soon. The SE can and will be hotter than the 4 star, but as we've all said, depends on your flying style, your competence, and what you wnat to do. remeber, you're looking at a mid mounted symetrical wing vs. a low wing semi symetrical...

My room-mate & co-flyer loves his SE, in fact, he's recently built #2 because he missed hi SE, even with and Extra 300 hanigng on the wall..

Personally, I love Sig kits..

There are a few others you might want to think about as well, aslo depending on your building skills..
The Slow Poke sport 40 & Peten' Poke from Greast Planes are 'neat' looking planes, and I feel docile enough for a second plane

The Thunderbug from Balsa USA

The Mid Star by sig

The COntender, can't remeber the manuf though..

Any J-3 cub..

Try a decathelon, if your skills lean towards the SE..


But typically, the 4 star is ALWAYS the seocnd plane..

dr.wogz
www.aerotech-rc.com

They still use one-bladers for FF. Mass ballanced with a lead weight... but dynamicly very unballanced. Bad idea for R/C.

Cubs will do more than some people think... A couple of years ago, there was a contestant at our club's annual Pattern contest who flew a Cub, and did fairly well.
You should have seen the full scale J-3 aerobatics demo at the old Byron "Strking Back" airshow appx 1994.... You see that, and you KNOW a Cub's not boring, even with less than 1:2 power:weight.

The curent 4*40 kit (and all other 4*'s...) is lazer cut, and the parts are more accurate than the plans! This shows the most in the wing rib spacing and the pre-cut sheer webs. (which REALLY are the correct size for all but the root bays)

I believe Sig is slowly upgrading kits to lazer cutting, doing the more popular and more recent ones first... I wouldn't be suprized to see a lazer cut Kadet Sr kit in 3 or 4 years.

I am currently building an se with an irvine 53 great plane seen several fly (lower the control rates until you get used to the fast response.)but another great areobatics trainer is the easy sport 40.

I can concur that the Sig 4*40 is now lazer cut. The only problem that I had with the plane was that the spar cutouts in the ribs were a little loose. I laminated some very small pieces of 1/64" plywood in there. Works like a champ.

IMHO, you'd be wise to get a 4*40 before the SE. I have one and love it. It's a blast to fly. Will fly almost vertically with a TT Pro 40. The plane is just plain fun.

I can't wait to get my SE finished, don't get me wrong. Along with a nice, easy transition plane between a trainer and the SE, the 4*40 is just a lot of fun to fly.

Hope this helps.

Bob

I can't speak to comparing the Mid-Star to the 4*40, I've never built or flown the Mid-Star. I think that the 4*40 would fly OK on the 40LA - it's a light plane. However, if you were buying an engine specifically for this plane, I'd pop for the extra $$ and get the TT .40 Pro. If the LA was an engine that you already had, you'd be doing OK to put that in OK.

And, you're correct. IMHO means In My Humble Opinion.

I've heard a lot of nice things about the Mid-Star, but can't say anything from personal experience. I'm sure someone out there will see this and give you a good opinion on it.

Hope this helps,

Bob