Sig Midstar verses Fourstar
 

Many people in these forums talk alot about the 4*, I am now flying ( landing and taking off on my own) burnt up about 2 gallons of fuel. I want to build a kit for a winter project, I favor the Mid* over the 4* mainly because it has tricycle gear. Currently flying a avistar 40 select, I am not sure if I am ready for a tail dragger yet. My question is how hard is it to adapt to a tail dragger and everyones thoughts on mid* verses 4*. This will be my second kit to build I was in the sport in the mid 80"s and built a C.G. falcon 56, it flew great but was set up for 3 channel, ground and money caught up with me, but getting back into it and enjoying the heck out of it again.
Thanks, Richard

RE: Sig Midstar verses Fourstar
 

I've had both, the 4* is a little more maneuverable, the midstar is fine though. The tail dragger scenario is not as bad as made out, you just need to use rudder on takeoff and landing. Neither is bad for a tail dragger, which is the way I build the midstar. If you absolutely are set on the trike, go with the midstar, if you are willing to go the conventional route, either will be fine. They build about the same but the midstar has the removable canopy with a screw that can get lost at inconvenient times. It's a little more of a fiddle to put together at the field than the 4*.

RE: Sig Midstar verses Fourstar
 

I don't know much about the mid *, but the 4* is a fantastic second plane. Don't let the tail dragger thing scare you. Seems that many of the more "advanced" planes are tail draggers, so you will probably want to learn to fly one anyway. The four star will take off almost by itself.

RE: Sig Midstar verses Fourstar
 

How is the wing mounting on the mid*, is it a single piece wing that mounts under the canopy?
Thanks ,
Richard

RE: Sig Midstar verses Fourstar
 

Both are great planes. They do need 1 rib removed from each side to roll better. It won't affect the landing. Build the Mid-Star wing flat.

If you don't like the landing gear configuration, Balsa USA has clones that have the opposite gear configuration. The Thunderbug, a 4-Star clone is tri-gear and the StingRay, a Mid-Star clone is a tail dragger. I have an old StingRay that I use for testing and breaking in engines that has 1 rib removed. Flies great.

Any of these 4 would make a good choice for a second plane.

RE: Sig Midstar verses Fourstar
 

Who markets the Balsa USA models and or their website address.
Thanks
Richard

RE: Sig Midstar verses Fourstar
 

Disregard previous post i found the website but did not see the thunderbug.
thanks Richard

RE: Sig Midstar verses Fourstar
 

The thunderbug has been discontinued. I bought one in the early summer an a close out sale. Its a good flyer. Balsa USA kits are of a good quality, but their instructions are very poor for a first or second build. If your have 2-3 kits under your belt its not much of a problem.[sm=thumbup.gif]

RE: Sig Midstar verses Fourstar
 

My recommendation is to learn your plane and its habits. I never take off with full power. Learn to apply power and correct for torque as the plane increases speed. You will need to give the plane up elevator until you have enough speed that you don't need the downforce on the tail wheel and then correct with rudder until the plane is ready to fly. It des take practice but when you are competent, you will have the plane heading down the center line every time.

RE: Sig Midstar verses Fourstar
 

Great response,maybe i better stick to the Midstar, is this a laser cut kit and are the instructions comperable to Carl goldberg kits in information.I was considering the C.G. Tiger 60, but the lines on that plane just , well to put it mildly are to !@#$%% boxy. Also considering the Skyshark Fantasy but cant get much feedback on it. These are all trike planes, kinda what im looking for.
Thanks for all your input
Richard

RE: Sig Midstar verses Fourstar
 

Sorry Geistware,that response was to Bearmech. although thanks for the taildragger input. Do you continue to hold up elevator through the entire take off sequence, or do you let the tail fly and become level and then add up elevator?

RE: Sig Midstar verses Fourstar
 

I had a four star 60, and I just applied elevator and held till it lifted off. That's not the way its normaly done, but worked well for the four star 60. I have also tried this method on my Super Sportster 60 and it works, though not as well.

RE: Sig Midstar verses Fourstar
 

CRFlyer did you have to compensate for torque with the rudder or did it pretty much go straight? also what was the throttle position?

RE: Sig Midstar verses Fourstar
 

My 4 star had a super tigre .75 on it. I gave it full throttle and held elevator till it lifted off. I had a steerable tail wheel on that plane which was connected to the rudder.

You always have to be ready to steer the plane while on the runway. But if you throttle up smoothly, and have your tail wheel in alignment, then you should not have to use much rudder to compensate.

RE: Sig Midstar verses Fourstar
 

I have flow the 4* out of grass and asphault, on grass you add power more slowly than on a hard runway but pretty much you can have it on full power and with the tail flying before you apply up elevator. Since most of our models are overpowered holding elevator on take off dont matter much because its all thrust, the problem arise when the engine quits and there isnt enough forward airspeed. Thats when I have seen many beginners eating it on take off. As far as tail dragger, everyone gets used to it quite quickly, a few minutes taxing your model and you get the hang of its handling characteristics. If you want better aerobatic performance later on, go with the 4*. If you want a faster and more aerobatic "trainer" then go with the midstar.

RE: Sig Midstar verses Fourstar
 

wheelpant,

Switching to a taildragger is not that big of a deal. When I first switched it caused me to nervous, but most of that was from the instructions I had been given on how to take off with a taildragger. It is not nearly as hard as the instructions make it sound. It was my experience that having plenty of power made the transition easier. It will not take long before it is simple to take off like Geistware describes. In the meantime having enough power so you can just punch it and pull up on the elevator may take away some of your nervousness.

Eric

RE: Sig Midstar verses Fourstar
 

Dude, Wheelpant, the Tiger 60's arent ugly at ALL.

I have a tiger 2 arf and its BEAUTIFUL.

you just have to see that plane.

RE: Sig Midstar verses Fourstar
 

I agree, a Tiger 2 with the modified rounded nose is a gorgeous bird. There was an article on RCM how to modified the nose.

RE: Sig Midstar verses Fourstar
 

Can you tell me how to do that?

Anyway, even w/o teh rounded nose, it looks awesome. it would look even better if I painted the landing gear and the spinner cub yellow to match the covering!

RE: Sig Midstar verses Fourstar
 

Ok maybe the pic in tower hobbies does not do justice to the tiger 60, ill by that. What is the construction like for the kit model, laser cut or die cut and how does it compare to the sig kits out there are they laser or what. I built a C.G. kit 18 years ago and it was die cut but i dont even think they had laser back then.

RE: Sig Midstar verses Fourstar
 

So know im stuck between 2 trike planes -the tiger 60 and the midstar and a tail dragger th 4*, that after talking to all of you the tail dragger does not seem to hard to fly (so it seems i can only wait) what would be the best building kit out of those 3?
Thankyou Richard

RE: Sig Midstar verses Fourstar
 

The Tiger 2 has been redesigned with laser cut parts. The 4* also has laser cut parts.
The Tiger has a symmetrical airfoil that allows you to do more precision type aerobatics while the 4* has a semisymmetrical airfoil, more forgiving than the tiger but also more limited. Personally, the way the parts fit on the Tiger are better than on the 4*, it almost stays build without any glue added, thats how nice the construction goes. BUT DONT FORGET TO ADD GLUE!

RE: Sig Midstar verses Fourstar
 

Go with the tiger 60 arf. A friend of mine just got one as his second plane beauty it is

RE: Sig Midstar verses Fourstar
 

I have 2 4*60's and love them both. One was my second plane and first tail dragger. It was very easy to learn how to takeoff with this plane. It had a TT GP61 on it and I would just roll the throttle on nice and easy. It would lift the tail in about 20 feet and take off at half throttle in about 50 feet. I just had to tap the rudder a few times to keep it straight. I now have a new GMS 76 on it. This engine rocks. This plane has almost unlimited verticle and flies very nice. The second one was given to me by a friend I put a magnum 91 four stroke on it. This plane is heavier but has loads of power. It will go verticle until out of sight if you let it. I like the one with the GMS engine the best. This engine plane combo is very hard to beat.

Rick

RE: Sig Midstar verses Fourstar
 

Hello Wheelpant:

I gots me a Mid star and love it. I have and MVVS 40 with a tuned muffler in it. I am here to tellya that runways are just about optional! It just plain Sh**s and gits. I have seen a fellow do the intermediate pattern with it (NOT me!). I have it as a taildragger and put wheel pants on it. It is the sharpest looking plane I own. The wing uses 2 nylon bolts to bolt it to the fusalage. Acaanopy is then screwed to the top of the wing. I have seen this plane flown on an old OS 40FP. It is a stable and gracefull plane to fly with normal power levels. It was an easy building plane. I have a 4*60 to build this winter. so I have no comparisons yet. Ithink you will like the Mid*. A nice Ball bearing 45 will be just fine. Good luck and enjoy.

Mark Shuman