sig rascal
 

Anyone have any experience with this plane. Looks like a nice looking plane. I'm looking for a home for my Saito .56, and the rascal fits the bill perfectly. Only problem I'm concerned about is its 5.5 lb frame. What kind of wind can it take? It doesn't have any dihedral, and has a semisymmetrical airfoil, so that will help a little with the wind, but keep in mind I fly in a average of 10-15 mph wind. We have much windier days, but that is average. Could the rascal be flown in 10-15 mph winds safely?
Thanks...

RE: sig rascal
 

I had a Rascal a couple years ago with a Saito .56 on it. It's the perfect engine for that plane. I tried a .46 2 stroke and no comparison to the 4 stroke. It flew great and done some of the prettiest knife edges I ever saw. At idle it would putt putt down the runway at walking speed. It was a real joy to fly. A little headwind is almost a must to land one. It glides forrrrrever. It doesn't like crosswinds at all but it's manageable. It has a VERY efficient rudder so crosswind landings are done "crabbing" it in. The downside is the extremely narrow fuse (it's hard to get your hands in to work on it) and I'm not crazy about the engine mounting rails. If the blind nuts come out of the mounting rails they are a pain to put back in (ask me how I know). I made up some new curse words and was talking in tongues before I got new ones in:D. The stock aluminum engine mount plates break easy. I made new ones out of better material. Outside of those minor issues it's a wonderful plane. I sold mine to my brother.
I'd buy another in a heartbeat.
WCB

RE: sig rascal
 

I have/had one up until about 2 weeks ago..... I purchased mine last Christmas as a well deserved gift to myself. I put an OS 52 FS in mine and really enjoy the putt-putt sound of the four stroke as well. Mounting the engine was a real pain because of the tight fitting cowl. I also put an MPI On Board Glow system. I am not sure I needed it but since the OS 52 was mounted inverted it was suggested that it would be a good idea. This was my first tail dragger and speaking for myself only -- it was a bit tricky compared to my trike Kadet Senior. I had an incident -- all my fault --- that requires me to replace the firewall..... It is a beautiful plane -- I love the elliptical wing tips and cant wait to get it back in the air. It kinda looks like an 1930-ish scale aircraft but I don't think there was ever a 1:1. While my Rascal is being repaired I picked up a 4*40 to fly (put OS 52 from Rascal in it) and I found it far easier on take offs. than the Rascal. So either I learned from the Rascal or the 4*40 is a much easier plane to fly. Sorry to ramble --- I love Sig's quality and I have 3 of their ARFs and am building a 4*60 as we speak. I think Sig does a beautiful job covering their planes -- far better than I could. I personally think the Rascal is one of the neatest planes out there - I want to try one on floats one of these days. Then maybe a Rascal 110........ I now have 5 planes GP 40 Cub/Sig Kadet Sr/Sig 4*40/H9 Arrow/Sig 4*60 (Under construction) and if I could only have one it would be a Rascal.

RE: sig rascal
 

Mimhoff, your list of planes is impressive. The other plane I was considering (besides the rascal) was the GP cub 40. How does it fly? Would the saito .56 be enough on it? It's about three pounds heavier than the rascal, and as such could take more wind possibly..
Thanks

RE: sig rascal
 

The rascal is a very nice plane. I took a photo of my buddy's Rascal 110 and didn't realize I had taken such a beautiful shot. At least to me anyway.

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/upfi...77/Ay75607.jpg

RE: sig rascal
 

DTB,
Wow!!!!!! That is a great shot. You should send that into Model Aviation. That would make a great picture for the cover!!

Ken

RE: sig rascal
 

I may just do that Ken. I do find it to be a nice shot. Not directly centered (on purpose) which often makes boring shots. It came out like I wanted. I just didn't know it would come out so nice. I have the high resolution photo on my computer at home.

RE: sig rascal
 

DTB,
Fantastic shot. Would you mind if I use it for wallpaper on my desktop? (I'll consider it copyrighted and it will go nowhere). Thanks

WCB

RE: sig rascal
 

WCB, I really appreciate your respect to ownership. I would be honored if you used it for your desktop photo.

Derrick

RE: sig rascal
 

Thanks DTB. You really ought to submit that to some RC mags. You may even get some $ for it! We ought to start a thread somehwere and have a photo contest. That would be fun.

WCB

RE: sig rascal
 

I started this thread a while back and it is growing slowly.

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_1623403/tm.htm

RE: sig rascal
 

I'm on my second Rascal 40. I agree with wcb about the flight characteristics, I too have a .56 Saito in mine. Strong winds will blow it around a bit, but I have actually had mine dead still (no ground speed) flying into a stiff breeze. Stall characteristics are predictable, usually drops straight ahead. My first one saw a steep learning curve on my part, it got beat up sveral times due to pilot error:). I broke the wing spar once, thought it was a goner and ordered another one; while waiting for it to arrive, I stripped the cover off the old one, fixed it, re-covered it and flew it for another year, during that time it flipped out the back of my truck on the way to the field and broke the tail, I fixed it again. I finally pancaked it after running out of gas, cracked everything, and I just didn't want to tear off the cover again to fix it, so I took everything out and put it in the second one, been flying it for several months, now, haven't dinged it yet.

I'd love to have the 110 size, just other stuff I want worse, or I'd have one. It's probably my favorite plane to fly. This one is my first one, after I re-covered it:

RE: sig rascal
 

2Slow-- I like the Rascal a bit more than the Cub. I just like the way the Rascal looks (kinda Cubish) and flys. Pretty much everyone has a Cub -- there are 3 or 4 at the field I fly at. The Rascal is not scale so people don't ask why you didn't put the correct landing gear etc -- The Cub has a OS 46 AX in it - of course people beat me up because it is not a 4 stroke. Since the Cub was a kit there is not the instant gratification of an ARF. I think you would be happier with the Rascal any day. Plus if you do the Cub with a 4 stroke, fancy undercarriage, Cub wheels -- it can get pretty pricey. I have ordered another kit that I am excited about -- it is the BTE enterprises Flyin King. It is pretty large high wing, trike or optional tail wheel also has flaps to play with and since Bruce used to design at Sig it should be well engineered-- it is kinda on the ugly side but loveable. Check it out at http://www.btemodels.com/flyin_king.html It is currently out of production but Bruce said it will be available in the next 30-60 days.I am going to try to do some aerial photography with it. Anyway back to your decision:

Rascal is -- Better looking, flys better, than a Cub (imho)-- Sig quality -- the covering job is beautiful -- Only down side is mounting the inverted engine in a confined space -- but when complete looks awesome

Cub is -- Just Another Cub hmm new accronym (JAC)

OK -- it 3:00am must get sleep need to stay awake at work in the AM

Good luck

RE: sig rascal
 

I just finished putting one of these together (the ARF), but haven't flown it yet. I have an OS52FS in mine - boy, what a job to get that in!

Question I have is about the wing bolts. The nylon bolts supplied seem pretty flimsy to me (smaller than the 1/4" nylon bolts I've used on my other planes). I've thought of replacing them with steel, but am having trouble finding these with the correct threads. Have others flown the plane with the stock bolts or replaced them?

Thanks
Dave

RE: sig rascal
 

Dave, I used the stock nylon wing bolts. No problems.
WCB

RE: sig rascal
 

2slow,
My friends have a cub, and They are QUITE hard to fly in wind from what i saw. That huge wing gets blown around very easily. They also handle on the ground horrible from what i've heard. (My friends is a Great planes .40 size. They are putting a 70 on it, because the 40 LA wasn't enough. a 56 4s should be perfect for it.)

RE: sig rascal
 

I hate to say it, but the Rascal does fly more easily than a Cub. I have a 1/5 Sig Cub (as an L-4), power it with a .65 Saito, and it is great for scale flying, doing long-roll takeoffs, practicing side-slips on approach in crosswinds, etc, but the Rascal is just plain fun. I finally learned to fly it inverted, does pretty well. No way would I try that with my L-4, partly because of the emotional attachment to a plane I have over 400 hours building time; the rascal , while I wouldn't call it "disposable", has less emotional baggage with it, I'm willing to hang it out a bit more, and it's equal to the task(it's a better plane than I am a pilot:)). I have been thinking about putting a .72 Saito in it, just to see what it would do. I have both the .72 and an .80 on the shelf; the .72 has the same size crankcase as the .56, so it will fit. The .80 is an older design, the case is too wide to fit between the mount rails. I tried putting a .65 in it when I fist got it, but the .65 is also too wide, its case is the same as the .80.

I saw several Rascal 110's at Joe Nall, a couple had gas engines. Didn't get to see them fly, though. Not enough room in the pattern, I guess, with all the CAP's, Edge's, Extra's Ultimates, Sukhoi's, yada, yada, yada.

RE: sig rascal
 

thanks for all of the input guys.
I'm still a little leary about that 5.5 pound airframe and it's ability to stand up to the wind. I hate to have 4 to 500 dollars tied up in something that I can only fly on the calmest of days! Still considering all of my options.....
My dad has a Kadet Senior, and it doesn't take the wind worth a crap.