So yesterday I lost my 2 week old GP Super Sportster trying to do a Cuban 8....I dont know what happened but I lost it. All I saw was it go into the trees and wood chips fluttering everywhere(wings being sheared off). Ive recovered everything in the Fusealge. (At the speed it was going I am actually surprised at the excellent condition of the fuse). Anyhow its time for a replacement. Any suggestions? I loved the Super Sportster....but hated the issue with the landing gear blocks(No sturdy at all-possible production issue). Had an OS 46 AX on it.....add throttle and the thing was a MONSTER. I want something stable and aerobatic. Will be using the OS 46 AX again. I looked at the SIG Four Star but from what Ive read seems it might be a bit boring. When I had the Sportster I was thinking of getting the Avistar as my back-up plane. I had the Electristar has my trainer...but always loved what ive seen of the Avistar; however I want to stick with a low wing as my primary. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

To be totally honest here, there really aren't too many boring planes out there. Pilots at times will label a plane boring but they just haven't explored what the plane is truely capable of. Just ask Insanemoondoggie. He thought his 4-star was boring too, until he saw what it was capable of!!

The 4-star is a great choice for a second plane, but I honestly think that the Goldberg Tiger II is an even better choice. It's a little more capable than the 4-star, but both are excellent choices for second planes.

Hope this helps

Ken

AS ALWAYS RCKEN...THANKS FOR THE INFO. HAVE YOU FLOWN BOTH? WHAT CAN THE TIGER DO BETTER THAN THE FOUR STAR?

Good Post Ken,

I have not flown the Tiger, but I know it is an excellent plane....
The 4* can be very capable......

I ended up cutting the ele, and rud off and building new ones slightly larger with counterbalances....
Field long high alpha knife edges, flatter than flat, flat spins; hovers, etc. etc. etc......

either one would be great..........

ro347,
Like I said, both are pretty close to each other. But if I have to pick it's going to go to the Tiger II. I think that the Tiger II is a bit better with inverted flight than the 4-star, and I also think that the Tiger has a little bit better landing profile. But as I said, either are great second plane.

Ken

Ken is right planes can typically do a lot more than pilots make them. For example I brought my Big Stick 40 out to the field the other night for its maiden flight. One of the better pilots in my club took it up. After doing the initial trim he started playing around; seeing what it could do. Within a couple minutes he had it doing rolling circles. They were not the prettiest I have seen him do, but the plane did manage the maneuver quite well considering I never thought it could do anything like that.

Taking this into account I am quite sure that when I upgrade to the 4* this fall I will be quite happy with its performance.

Ken I enjoyed hanging out with you, and you sure can fly.
Just wanted you to know , when I got home I found a 1/2 piece of stick-on lead , lying on the work bench , which was suppose to be stuck far back on the bottom of the stab, lol No wonder the inverted flight was a little effort. I must say, you fly a nose heavy plane well.
On landings, I`ve noticed just before the wheels touch down, seems to have some ground effect on the wing, is that what you where talking about?

Sorry to hear about your Super Sportster. I have a 60 size that my stepdad build 21 years ago. Flies nice, lands ok.

Quick question off topic. Will a Super Sportster fly knife edge? I am sure with the dihedral it would be a challange. Just wondering if it has been mastered by anyone here?

See ya,

Del

The Super Sportster will knife edge. I have a buddy who used to fly his Super Sportster .40 ARF with an O.S. Max .50 SX, it's pretty impressive what the Super Sportster is capable of with the right setup.

I hope that all of us have the benefit of being bored by a Four Star or Goldberg Tiger! That's a good problem to have. Still, it seems like an odd statement after watching your Super Sportster go in. I thought finding something a little more mild was the idea?

You could always consider a Big Stik or Easy Sport; either airframe would be more stable than the Super Sportster but plenty capable of solid aerobatics. The Avistar would be pretty exciting with a .46 AX on the nose, though, as well. I seriously doubt that you'd be at all unhappy with a Four Star or Goldberg Tiger though. I know a number of very good pilots who keep Four Stars and/or Goldberg Tigers in their hangar for days when they simply want to relax with some crisp sport flying.

Well i lost the Sportster for being STUPID and COCKY! After getting the thing to go verticle and what appeared to be a hover for a few seconds....I lost my head. I was able to handle the plane...but took it to far too soon and didnt realize the proximity to the trees....I got it right side up- then SMACK! Through the trees. Im not to proud to admit I F$#%ed up! Makes me have a little more respect for the planes and the patient progression this hobby takes.

I think the FOUR STAR will be the next one up at bat.

Well, if you feel confident in your ability to handle the Super Sportster and this was simply an incidence of piloting error (dumb thumbs, as it's often refered to) then why not stick with the Super Sportster? It's far more capable aerobatically than the other planes mentioned in this thread so far.

Shelling out another $150 for the same ARF you just piled in might not be the most gratifying purchase, but you've got your old ARF to use for spares in the event of a future incident, and you like the way the Super Sportster flies.

Put another Super Sportster together, do your landing gear reinforcement right out of the box, and have a blast knowing that you've got spare parts at home and/or you can take your time to repair the old one while flying the new one.

You have to move up to a pattern ship or a scale aerobat to find a more capable airframe than the Super Sportster in an ARF configuration. If you're confident that the plane is within your skill level, you should stick with it.

If you want to try something different that is equally as capable as the Super Sportster but no more challenging to fly, then take a good look at the Great Planes Venus 40 ARF. That would fly quite well with your .46 AX and will do some things even better than the Super Sportster.

I would wait on a pattern or scale aerobat model. Yes, pattern models are about the most stable thing out there, but it sounds like you may still benefit from and want a little self-correction. Mid wing aircraft with symmetrical airfoils won't fly at high angles of attack and are more prone to violent stalls.

That being said, as BigEd mentioned the Super Sportster is much more capable than the Four Star or Tiger II and if you were comfortable with it I wouldn't take a step back. I just wouldn't take another step forward to a pattern or scale aerobat model yet.

Congratulations to be the only one ever to admit it! Most of us blame it on the equipment. NEVER ADMIT YOUR WRONG, IT'S A SIGN OF WEAKNESS!

You want to see something really cool? wait until you see pilots who "program the tx" while in flight! Not trimming mind you but in the darn thing. The ultimate definition of an "Oxymoron."

When any pilot thinks their plane is getting boring, ask someone who's better than you at flying aerobatics to fly it. You'll feel sorry for the plane and probably humbled a bit. Kinda like when I think my golf game is getting better and I play with guys who are 10 times better than I, makes me realize that my game is no where it needs to be.

A buddy of mine who is an awesome pilot, better than I, let another pilot fly his Cermark Pitts. This guy pulled it into an inverted spin, something my buddy can't do and he was really impressed as he has been unable to complete that manuever.

I personally like the four star and it's probably way more capable than you might think. I haven't flown the Goldberg Tiger II and never have seen it fly, but I respect what RCKen thinks and if he recommends it, then I sure its a great plane.

Hmmm...What else is there other than the Venus thats is comparable to the Super Sportster. I dont have the build experience and a bit apprehensive about cutting up the wing to reinforce the landing gear. Would anyone have any idea on how to attack this? The front half of the wings are sheeted and the blocks lie behind that. I know I could just cut through...but getting it back together and flush and having the sheeting as strong as it was is my concern.

And by the way...there are no spare parts...only toothpics.

So Confused...dont know what to get.

Having only toothpics not so bad, Now you get to start out fresh. Well this is what I convince myself of when it happens to me.
Sorry you smucked your Sporty but what the heck. Defie Murphy and get another set of wings .lol

ro 347,
Can't believe no-one mentioned a Kaos. The Kaos arf is cheaper than the 4 * arf. I have both planes, the Kaos is faster than the 4*, but the 4* lands slower. I have never flown a Tiger, but they look nice. Anyways, listgen to the advice you get hear, it's always good. The final choice is yours. Good Luck!

What makes you think the landing gear needs reinforcement on this ARF? I haven't flown one but from what I can tell it's a quality model, in fact, it is extensively used in the lower classes of precision aerobatics. I know I'll catch heat for this but I think some of the people that claim the need for reinforcement need to learn to land better.

If you do feel the need for this modification it really isn't very difficult and balsa is very easy to work with.

On about my 3rd flight i was taxi-ing down the runway(with wheelpants on) and I accidentally went over into the grass as i was turning for takeoff...the plane flipped and one side of the landing gear could no longer support the plane.

What about the HANGER 9 PULSE XT? Using an OS AX 46.

If you have a Venus already, then I would repair and fly it. The damage the aircraft sustained is likely very mild and it's easy to fix. Plus you will gain building experience which will save big bucks down the road.

Most RC flyers take off and land on grass air strips rather than on paved runways. Nathan is spoiled by flying at one of the nicer flying sites in the Midwest, Hawk Field in Omaha, NE has a 500' paved runway and is so nice that it was featured as an additional flying site for Aerofly Professional Deluxe's first expansion pack. Ikarus even used flying scenes from Hawk Field in their magazine ads.

Grass airfields aren't necessarily any harder on landing gear than paved runways. Grass runways do need to be "rolled out" periodically to assure a smooth, even surface underneath the grass. A grass runway that hasn't been rolled out or maintained properly can chew up landing gear quite spectacularly.

With regard to the Hangar 9 Pulse XT that was mentioned previosly, it too is a fine sport plane and would fly quite well with ro347's .46 AX in it. The Pulse XT is more similar to the Four Star or Goldberg Tiger in handling characteristics, however. The number one complaint about the H9 Pulse XT .40 from folks who have flow them? Weak landing gear.

Nathan's advice is correct in that, sooner or later ro347, you're going to need to learn how to repair, rebuild, modify, and improve your airplanes. Take the time now and get some help from a more experienced builder in your club. Whether you decide on another Super Sportster or a Pulse XT, Four Star, Goldberg Tiger, Phoenix Dolphin, GP Easy Sport, or whatever, take the extra time to reinforce the landing gear as best you can.

The only way to develop the building and repairing skills that you don't already have is to wade into a project, give it a try, and make some mistakes. If you don't, the alternative is simply piling up old ARFs because you have to replace them every time you crack a fuselage or ding the leading edge of a wing. That's going to be way more expensive in the long run than simply spending the extra time and money now to learn how to fix and rebuild.

Yes, last time I was down there I sat flying my 80% H-1 Racer with a plate of squid, chortling as I thought about all of those "park flyer" people in disgust.

Seriously though, it's easy to forget others have different facilities. Yes, if you fly off lumpy grass it's a good idea to do a light reinforcement.

I think every airplane I've purchased had people complaining about the "weak" landing gear. I've never managed to break gear or gear mounts, and my flying is nothing special. I typically don't give those complaints much weight unless they are VERY widespread. Unless the strip is so lumpy that it's shearing off gear regularly I don't think there will be a problem with most ARFs. And if it is, it really isn't the manufacturers fault.

I think that Venus repair would be an ideal way to gently test the waters of airframe repair.

The original poster doesn't have a Venus 40, I simply recommended it as an alternative in case he'd like to try something besides another Super Sportster.

The problem as I see it is that he doesn't seem to want another Super Sportster and he doesn't want to go to a more mild airframe. My previous point was that the Super Sportster is one of the most capable and aerobatic sport plane ARFs on the market, so there aren't very many alternatives.

Oh, and Nathan you are welcome to come over to the Midwest Performance Flyers field to fly as my guest any time. We'll see how well your landing gear holds up on their fine field. You couldn't make it much more difficult to land if you practiced artillery shelling there. It's no wonder that helicopters and hand-launched electrics are so popular with club members there!