First Kit Build Question
#1
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Belmont,
NC
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First Kit Build Question
I am considering getting a kit to transfer equipment from a crashed H-9 P51 PTS (this could probably be rebuilt but I have no real expereince building so i dont know how to go about the repair) anyway I got a SUPERSTAR and have bee soloing on it for a few weeks (I only get to fly every other weekend due to work schedule)... Please Do not get me wrong here I dont want to be the newbie at the field who jumps into a plane he isnt ready for after only a few solo flights on the trainer. I still enjoy flying the trainer, and I will admit that I by no means have fully mastered all aspects of trainer flight. I plan on taking plenty of time building the kit and wont attempt to fly it until my instructor feels that i am ready. I just for some reason have a hankering to try my hand at the building aspect of the hobby. Maybe it is to geive me something to do that is related to the hobby when i cant fily during the week, but dont have to be at work. I have considered a Duraplane DuraStik .40 the reviews on this site are about 50/50 positive and negative for the model. I have kinda narrowed it down to some form of stik to build because of the high wing design and the tricycle landing gear. Can anyone offer any further advice on the Durastick 40, is there another stick type kit that would be better? Is there another plane design that a new builder would be more successful with?
#2
My Feedback: (1)
RE: First Kit Build Question
If you already have a high wing trainer to fly, and want to try building something fairly basic, but something that would make a good second plane and has more personality than a stik, look at a 4-Star 40 kit. Fuselage is slab-sided, and the wing is constant-chord with simple tips, you can use everything that came out of the PTS (Rx, servos, battery, etc.). It flies very well, is stable but does good beginning aerobatics. It is a tail-dragger, though. If you want a tricycle gear, look at the Mid-Star, similar design and performance with a mid wing.
#4
RE: First Kit Build Question
You can pick up the ARF PTS 51 for a $119.00 dolars at Horizon Hobby if you still want to try the mustang.
For a low wing the Sig 4 star 40 is a good choice. Sig kits are a pleasure to build compared to some.
For a low wing the Sig 4 star 40 is a good choice. Sig kits are a pleasure to build compared to some.
#5
RCU Forum Manager/Admin
My Feedback: (9)
RE: First Kit Build Question
ORIGINAL: Insanemoondoggie
You can pick up the ARF PTS 51 for a $119.00 dolars at Horizon Hobby if you still want to try the mustang.
For a low wing the Sig 4 star 40 is a good choice. Sig kits are a pleasure to build compared to some.
You can pick up the ARF PTS 51 for a $119.00 dolars at Horizon Hobby if you still want to try the mustang.
For a low wing the Sig 4 star 40 is a good choice. Sig kits are a pleasure to build compared to some.
Ken
#6
Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Jackson,
CA
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: First Kit Build Question
Sig doesn't make their instructions available online, but Goldberg does. You might take a look at the Tiger 2 or Tiger 60. Download the instructions and see if this is more than you want to deal with. I am relatively new in the hobby myself, and although I got off the buddy box in December I still have a way to go with my Eagle 2 before taking the next step. But like you I wanted to build a kit as a winter project, figuring that by the time I got it together I might be ready to fly it. It came down to the Tiger or the Sig 4 Star. Then a friend who no longer flies gave me a partly completed Sig Hog Biplane (I love bipes). I did go and look at the Tiger 60 at the LHS, and then decided I didn't need two projects so got the 4 Star 40 ARF as my next trainer (low wing) and am building the Bipe as my project. I think Goldberg's instructions for the Tiger are better than the Sig ones for the Hog. so I'm guessing that the 4 Star's are also a bit weak. While both require some "looking ahead" to find missing steps or photos the Goldberg includes drawings of processes and steps, more photos, and are more detailed. At some point the Sig ones look like the guy writing them got bored and it just sort of wanders off into "and then you put the whole thing together." The Tiger 60 is a bit more versatile kit than the 4 Star as according to Goldberg it will fly with a 40 (The Sig 4 Star 60 requires a 60 as the minimum) and can be built with tricycle gear or as a taildragger...but though the picture on the box shows the latter they don't tell you how.
#7
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Omaha, NE
Posts: 4,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: First Kit Build Question
The Great Planes Easy Sport .40 is available in either ARF or kit form, and it is essentially an "ugly stik" variant with a bubble canopy on the wing. Great Planes kits, like Sig and Goldberg, offer detailed instructions and photos and are usually well suited for the beginning builder. The Rapture .40 kit is another good suggestion, as is the Four Star and Mid Star. Oh, and the Tiger 2/Tiger 60 kits. You could also think about the Lanier Fun Fly 40 kit.
Most any of these would seem to be better choices than the Duraplane Durastick kit. Planes that are specifically designed to be "crashable" usually don't fly anywhere near as well as planes that are simply designed to fly well.
You will also want to avoid the Balsa USA 1/4 scale Fokker DR-1 Triplane kit. That is more a project for sometime down the road.
Most any of these would seem to be better choices than the Duraplane Durastick kit. Planes that are specifically designed to be "crashable" usually don't fly anywhere near as well as planes that are simply designed to fly well.
You will also want to avoid the Balsa USA 1/4 scale Fokker DR-1 Triplane kit. That is more a project for sometime down the road.
#8
Senior Member
My Feedback: (4)
RE: First Kit Build Question
Stay away from the "Dura" line of planes. They are not built through conventional means, and will give you NO building experience.
Since you said that you have not "Mastered" your trainer yet, I would suggest 4 planes (in order of skill needed to fly):
Easy:
Great Planes Easy Sport
Goldberg Tiger II
Slightly More Advanced:
Great Planes Rapture
Sig 4*
All four are just great fliers and they build very well with easy-to-read, step-by-step instruction
Since you said that you have not "Mastered" your trainer yet, I would suggest 4 planes (in order of skill needed to fly):
Easy:
Great Planes Easy Sport
Goldberg Tiger II
Slightly More Advanced:
Great Planes Rapture
Sig 4*
All four are just great fliers and they build very well with easy-to-read, step-by-step instruction
#9
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Park Rapids, MN
Posts: 2,989
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: First Kit Build Question
I'm just happy to see a new guy interested in building! Since good planes have been recommended and I have no further advice on choices, I will only go on to say that building (for me) is every bit as enjoyable as flying. Welcome to the building aspect of a great hobby!
#10
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Belmont,
NC
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: First Kit Build Question
I have done a bit of research on both the RC Universe as well as other websites and believe that I have decided on the SIG MIDSTAR I think this will do me better than the 4* based on the info i colud get from here and the sig website... The recomended engine for this plane is .30-.40 cu in for 2 stroke, i was just wonderin... about engines. I have the engine from my first trainer which is an Evolution Power Trainer system i believe it is a .46 size. I have considered investing in a new engine as the Evolution has not been run in quite some time... I did drain it and put after run oil in it so in theory it should be fine but the damage to the plaine will make it hard if not imposible to test run the engine without first installing it on a new plane. any advice on this, also Would I do better to get an O.S. .40LA or an O.S. .46LA these are the engines i would probably get if i did invest in a new engine, or is the power trainer system, assuming it still works properly sufficent for this plane? is a .46 size engine going to be too much power for this plane, and are there another engine systems that i may be better off with?
Oh and by the way, thanks for the advice from everyone who pitched in about building, it is really appreciated...
Oh and by the way, thanks for the advice from everyone who pitched in about building, it is really appreciated...
#11
My Feedback: (4)
RE: First Kit Build Question
Dragline--You got lots of good advice here including "aviod dura planes." I don't know about the midstar you like but from experience, I can tell you the 4* 40 or 60 are great flying planes. The 60 is the easiest building kit I have every done. No sheeting, except the center section and the criss cross bracing is just plain georgeous. The Tiger 2 is also a great flying plane--it was my second plane and I flew it with a Super Tigre 45 and later changed to a Saito 56. Either of these planes is a fine second plane. Don't worry about the tail dragger--I think people make it sound a lot worse than it is. Key to it is a couple of degrees of tow-in on the wheels.
Good luck.
Good luck.
#12
My Feedback: (1)
RE: First Kit Build Question
Dragline-
Regarding your engine question. The Evolution will be a more powerful engine than an OS LA. I would try to re-use it if there is no damage. If it turns over fine, it should run. You said you couldn't test run it easily. I disagree. My engine test stand is about the simplest thing around. Take a piece of at least 1/2" plywood and cut a rectangular slot in it the same size as the engine. Drill four holes and mount the engine. Screw a couple of hooks in it behind the engine to use rubber bands to hold down the fuel tank. Then attach a pushrod to the engine to work by hand. Clamp the whole assembly to something solid. I use the stairs to my deck. Start 'er up.
If you do decide to get a new engine, try the Magnum .46. Magnum had them on sale recently.
-Scott
Regarding your engine question. The Evolution will be a more powerful engine than an OS LA. I would try to re-use it if there is no damage. If it turns over fine, it should run. You said you couldn't test run it easily. I disagree. My engine test stand is about the simplest thing around. Take a piece of at least 1/2" plywood and cut a rectangular slot in it the same size as the engine. Drill four holes and mount the engine. Screw a couple of hooks in it behind the engine to use rubber bands to hold down the fuel tank. Then attach a pushrod to the engine to work by hand. Clamp the whole assembly to something solid. I use the stairs to my deck. Start 'er up.
If you do decide to get a new engine, try the Magnum .46. Magnum had them on sale recently.
-Scott