2nd plane -- Pulse XT or 4 Star?
 

Hi all,

Looking to move up to my second plane. Currently flying the Tower 40 trainer and have been very happy with it so far.

What's your opinion of either the Sig 4-star 40, or the Hangar 9 Pulse XT? Is one better than the other for use as a 2nd plane? Would probably put a .46 engine on either one of them....

Looking for pro's/con's for each. Thanks in advance!

Glenn

RE: 2nd plane -- Pulse XT or 4 Star?
 

I ALSO MADE MY DECISION BETWEEN THE 2. I CHOSE THE PULSE. EXCELLENT QUALITY KIT. EASY ON LOW RATES....GREAT ON HIGH RATES. VERY AEROBATIC. NOT A 3D PLANE....BUT AEROBATIC -YES. mAKE SURE YOU REINFORCE THE INSIDE OF THE FUSELAGE BY THE LANDING GEAR AREA WITH EPOXY. ITS AN OPEN AIRFRAME DESIGN SO ITS BUILT TO BE LIGHT. IVE BENT LANDING GEAR BUT HAVE YET TO RIP IT OUT OF THE FUSE. IM THINKING CAUSE I REINFORCED IT BEFORE FLYING. A 46 SIZE ENGINE GIVES IT GREAT POWER. MAKE SURE TO CHECK ALIGNMENT OF THE HINGE SLOTS BEFORE GLUING. THEY ARENT ALWAYS CENTERED TO EACH OTHER. I ALSO UPGRADED THE WHEEL AXLES FOR REAL ONES BY DUBRO AND A SULLIVAN TAILWHEEL INSTEAD OF THE OEM.

PM ME WITH ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS.

RE: 2nd plane -- Pulse XT or 4 Star?
 

The Sig has a great reputation here. Someone else will have to tell you more about it, because I don't have one... maybe someday! :) I'm not sure you could go wrong with either of these planes. I do have a Pulse XT and have been pretty thrilled with it.

Pulse Pros
-------------
It has the best instruction manual I've seen

It really is a good looking plane. I'm not a fan of the 4 *'s canopy shape for some reason, but that's just me.

It's a joy to fly, and feels like such a zippy sports car as compared to my trainer of course. My triple loops are straight now, inverted flight is easy, etc.... after flying this plane I understand what keeps people in this hobby.


Pulse Cons
-------------
It took quite a bit of fiddling to get my control rods right in construction. They measured what the instruction book said they should, but I simply could not get them to physically fit and be anywhere close to having the control surfaces neutral. We finally ended up lengthening one of them.

Getting the cowling cut just right likewise took a lot of work. Maybe they are all like that, I don't know.



Mine is powered with an OS 46 AX, and I'm really happy with that, too. Be prepared for everything to be faster than the trainer: I still have to consciously work to keep the plane close in else it gets small in a hurry, and landings are a bit faster but they aren't bad. I've yet to make my taildragger takeoffs very pretty... those take some getting used to as well.




J

RE: 2nd plane -- Pulse XT or 4 Star?
 

On the "cons", MOST ARF's are the same, so don't hold it against the Pulse XT.

It's a great flying plane, that is gentle on landings, tracks straight during takeoff, and you'll not tire of it.

RE: 2nd plane -- Pulse XT or 4 Star?
 

I have a Pulse XT with a 46 but have yet to maiden it. Earlier in my flying days I did have a 4*40 and it was great. I thought it was an excellent second plane and I`m sure I`d still be flying it if I hadn`t lost it to a bad battery ( 100% avoidable; just plain dumb on my part ).

RE: 2nd plane -- Pulse XT or 4 Star?
 

I was in the same situation until a club member made me a deal on a Pulse XT. This is a great second plane as far as I'm concerned. It flies great on dual rates, it seems to be easy to land, and it can be very acrobatic. The wing on the Pulse XT is wider and longer so I think it maybe a little more forgiving. The Pulse XT will probably be faster than your trainer so you may want to fly the trainer with a different prop, or at a higher speed to get used to the speeds you will see from the low wing. If you have FMS, there is a new Pulse XT and 4*40 you can download. You could then fly both on the sim to see which one you like more. You can also do a comparison in the user reviews for both planes.
Indy Park Flyer

Hangar:

Hangar 9 Alpha 40
Hangar 9 Pulse XT

RE: 2nd plane -- Pulse XT or 4 Star?
 

My second plane is a Pulse, and it is just a blast to fly. Has an OS 46 AX. Had it out last weekend, 10-20mph winds. The Pulse just cuts right through, and landings in the wind are no problem. Couldn't taxi around though. Wind just kept turning the tail downwind.[X(] I like to canopy looks, and I have a voltwatch installed in the cockpit.

RE: 2nd plane -- Pulse XT or 4 Star?
 

I say go with the pulse, i dont' own one but there is a few people at my club that have them and they love them

RE: 2nd plane -- Pulse XT or 4 Star?
 

I know this is of topic but will someone explain rates to me

RE: 2nd plane -- Pulse XT or 4 Star?
 

I have the 4 * , it is the first plane I fly at a new feild or if it`s been awhile since I`ve been on the sticks. This is one of my favotires.
But since I have not flown the Pulse , can not tell you the pro`s and cons between the two. I have several Hanger 9 ARF`s and they are good planes. Might as will get both , I guess. lol

RE: 2nd plane -- Pulse XT or 4 Star?
 

Rates: Ok say the rate or the throw listed in the manual calls for the ailerons to move 5/8" up and 5/8" down when the sticks are moved to max. If you have a radio that can switch between 2 different rates, you may want to set your low rate to 3/8" and the high rate to 5/8" . This will make the plane less sensitive at the low rate setting which will be used say when you are doing some high speed passes and then go to the max rate when you are slowed down and coming in to land. Does that make sense?? Just don't go crazy on both sides like my buddy did. His low rate on the ailerons had the ailerons move so little that they couldn't turn the plane and the high rate made the plane turn and roll so fast that it was almost uncontrollable!! [X(]

RE: 2nd plane -- Pulse XT or 4 Star?
 

thank you I understand

RE: 2nd plane -- Pulse XT or 4 Star?
 

nice to know the pulse is recommended. I'm also thinking of getting one, looks nice and will take all the gear from my trainer.

RE: 2nd plane -- Pulse XT or 4 Star?
 

I just read through the other responses and something has just occurred to me. The Pulse is a great second plane, these days, and I think I understand why.

Only a few years ago, the typical transition from trainer to second plane came after a few flights, when the trainer was destroyed. The student, having solo'd and learned the basics with the trianer, would try more advanced moves, and augur the trainer in.

At that point the student would need a second plane, but it needed a lot of the forgiving characteristics of a trainer. The 4-Star was a very adequate example of what was needed. Lots of lift, will fly very slow, and has good stability. For an advanced student, it floats forever, but still allows some aerobatic practice.

Today's student often practices with an instructor, using a tandem transmitter setup. The first plane typically lasts far beyond the initial instruction period, and along the way the student uses a computer flight simlulator to learn all the maneuvers. Bottom line, the second plane can be a much more agile (e.g. unstable) plane, and the student will be completely capable of handling it.

Compared to the Four-Star, the Pulse is faster, more agile and must be landed at a faster speed. For today's student, that's probably just fine! For a gentle flyer, a Four-Star is great, but probably a little docile for a lot of students.

Interesting. how advances in the learning process change the market.
Best wishes,
Dave Olson

RE: 2nd plane -- Pulse XT or 4 Star?
 

PULSE all the way
i thinks it looks better, flys great the tail wheel will take some time to get the hang of it but a great plane. it comes in a little fast then your trianer but it not a big thing. also like some one said build up the landing gear i with some expy make sure your sand it first. and if you can get to home depot or your lhs get nylon bolts for the gear just use 2 of them dont need 3. and you can take all your gear form the plane you got now and it will fly that pulse great you will need one more servo jr st 47 $9.99 good luck
pulse all the way

RE: 2nd plane -- Pulse XT or 4 Star?
 

It depends what you want to do. The 4* is also a good kit for bashing.
It builds like a trainer so it'll help you get started in understand R/C air frame construtions.
It's easy to repair. Eventaully we all have to make repairs to our models.
I generally clip the wing, lower the diehedral, extend the rudder, sheet the rear deck and
of course i also trim the canopy to make it sits lower.
It'll actaully cost more to build, but i get to have a 4* with my own scheme. plus i'll have
extra film for patch jobs later on.

the FMS pluse looks pretty cool thou. The aurther set the parimeters to where it flys pretty
close to my bashed 4*.

RE: 2nd plane -- Pulse XT or 4 Star?
 

An appreciation for "the Classics"

There are lot of new and exciting things happening in our sport right now, and the rate of innovation can be breathtaking at times. Brushless electric power systems, wildly aerobatic 3D micro helicopters, spread spectrum 2.4Ghz radio systems, 3D aircraft with side force generators, balanced LiPo batteries and chargers, and even new glow engines designed for environmentally friend bio fuels are all popping onto our marketplace at an amazing rate. It's tough to keep up with all of the exciting new trends and innovations.

A few things in this hobby will likely never change, however. Have you ever heard a mantra like, "Build it straight and lightweight and it will fly good"? How about, "A nose-heavy plane will fly poorly, but a tail-heavy plane will only fly once?" If anyone ever sits down to write an RC Bible, surely sayings like these will be in the book of RC Proverbs.

New pilots entering this fantastic sport have a huge advantage over the long-time veterans; we can learn from their past trials and mistakes without having to make them ourselves. There are fountains of RC wisdom available to new pilots at our local clubs, here at RC Universe, and writing articles for all of our favorite (paper and ink) RC magazines. So why is it more of us aren't listening?

One of the things about this hobby that amazes me is how little regard most sport flyers have for the history of model aviation. Maybe it's because the hobby is so innundated right now with ground-breaking new technology that so many freshman RC pilots tend to gravitate to only the newest and shiniest planes, radios, and engines.

I'm not suggesting that folks interested in learning to fly RC planes should skip purchasing an Alpha .40 RTF at their local hobby store and elect instead to scratch-build a Bucaneer old-timer and buy a reed-valve engine to fly it with. A great number of innovations have made this sport more enjoyable and more accessable over the last several years, and those are innovations that I applaude.

Other "innovations" seem to be more dubious, however. There's an old saying that if you want to make money selling fishing lures, you need to design them to catch fisherman and not fish. In that spirit, we have seen the Nexstar ALS system (great technology if you only fly at noon), the P51 Mustang PTS (you can claim you were shot down by the Germans when you crash it), and now a plane that is jokingly being referred to as the F-22 "Craptor" PTS by some posters hear at RCU.

What's ironic is that these are basically good planes. I myself bought a Nexstar and learned to fly on it. The P-51 PTS and F-22 PTS are both good sport planes by most accounts, even if they aren't really the best first glow aircraft for a budding new pilot. What I'm saying is that these planes, the three most expensive .40-sized RTFs on the planet, are designed more for luring pilots than teaching pilots to fly. They been packaged to maximize their style and glitz, with less attention focused on really being a solid basic trainer aircraft.

With all of these flashy new RTF trainer packages around, airplane kits like the Great Planes PT-40/PT-60, the Goldberg Eagle 2, and the Sig Kadet Senior/MkII/LT-40 continue to sell to modellers around the world. Why? Because they're classics! These are airframes that have earned their reputations over the years with modellers. These are airplanes with superior design qualities that build straight and they build light and they fly good.

I'm not trying to argue that we should all be building kits instead of ARFs or anything of the sort, either. I've always joked that if I'd had to build my own trainer from a kit before I could learn to fly I still wouldn't be up in the air yet. The Goldberg Eagle 2 and the Sig Kadet LT-40 are available in ARFs that, by all accounts, fly just a fantastic as the kit versions of the same plane. Sig even offers the LT-40 in a glow ready-to-fly version and an electric ready-to-fly version.

All I'm saying is, the next time you're getting ready to spend your own hard-earned cash on a new airplane or radio or engine, ask yourself this question, "Has this product stood the test of time?" If you're shopping for the latest and greatest spread spectrum radio or brushless outrunner power system, this question may not be relevant. If you're shopping for a trainer or a sport plane, or any other product category that existed more than three years ago however, this is a very valid question.

The best products in this sport have stood the test of time. Why can Goldberg still sell the dated and somewhat homely Tiger 2/Tiger .60 kit and ARF in this day and age? It's that good of an airplane. Why is the Sig Four Star at the top of everyone's favorite sport plane list year after year after year? It's that good of an airplane. Why are folks still building Telemasters and Kadets and Eagles and Falcons from kits when you can buy a Nexstar ARF for $99.99? Because they are that good, they are classics, they have stood the test of time.

I have to confess that one plane that bugs the heck out of me right now is the Hangar 9 Pulse XT .40 ARF. I like Hangar 9 products, I think the plane is really good looking, I'm confident that it's well made and straightforward to assemble like almost all Hangar 9 products. It bugs me because it's a product that nobody needs except Hangar 9. It bugs me that so many pilots are buying them because they're shinier and newer looking than products that are better. The Pulse XT .40 is a nice looking plane from a respectable company, but I hate the fact that it's preventing pilots from flying some of the true classics of the sport.

To me, flying a Pulse XT .40 is like eating a veggie burger. It's a lot like the source it draws its inspiration from. There are some things about it that are even better than the original (zero cholesteral, a nice looking cowling). If you're hungry and you eat one, it will hit the spot. No matter what you do, no matter how much you dress up a veggie burger though, it's just not as good as the real deal. To me, the Ugly Stik (and all of its glorious incarnations) is the real deal. The Sig Four Star is the real deal. The Goldberg Tiger 2, by golly, that's the real deal. The Pulse XT .40 ARF? To me, that's a really well-made, tasty garden burger.

When you're shopping, talk to some veterans and find out about some of those funny older products that are still around. Why are Super Tigre ringed engines still on the market when you could buy Evolution or O.S. Max ABC engines instead? How come folks are still buying Sig Kobra, Kougar, and King Cobra kits for sport/pattern planes when you could just buy a Venus .40 ARF instead? Why did RC Ken hold his breath and jump up and down for three or four year until Don Anderson agreed to re-issue the original Ultra Sport .40 and .60 kits? Isn't an Edge 540 or a Cap 232 more aerobatic? Why does RC Ken care? All of my buddies are flying JR and Futaba radio systems. Why is it that both Horizon and Hobbico have been forced to carry Airtronics radio equipment too? Does Airtronics offer something the bigger names don't?

Wildly changing technology and constant innovation have made this an exciting sport in recent years. Some market segments are technology driven, and new products are absolutely necessary to keep fueling growth. Other market segments are more mature, however, like glow engines and trainers and sport planes and 72Mhz radios. Some of the best products in these market segments are so good that they're boring. They're tried and true and they haven't changed in decades and hopefully they never will. These are some of the truly outstanding products that we have available to us.

My advice for new and enthusiastic pilots is to gain an appreciation of the classics in this sport. It's fun to have the newest, shiniest stuff that was just reviewed in this month's Fly RC or Model Airplane News. Sometimes though, a manufacturer has to add some bells and whistles and glitter to their new trainer, because it's not as good as the Sig Kadet LT-40, but they have to try to sell it anyway. Learn from those who came before you, and find out what some of the tride and true benchmark products are in this industry. It might just save you from buying something called a "Craptor" as your very first RTF glow trainer.

RE: 2nd plane -- Pulse XT or 4 Star?
 

Good post Ed, I could`nt agree more.

RE: 2nd plane -- Pulse XT or 4 Star?
 

first off flyx why do you find the pulse on rfg3.5

and to big when it was time for me to buy my next plane i had it down to the pulse and the 4*. the pulse won due to a few reason. one i had talk to some people who had them also the great people here online they fly almost the same most say the "new" pulse flys better. all h9 did was take a great plane and make it a little better. also price played a major fact in it. and it looks better to me. i am not saying the kadet senior should be tossed in the trash becuse it old (this will be my next kit for the winter) things change cars houses everything in your world around you has changed and it will kept changing it's the way it goes. some of the oldies will be forgot and thats just the way it goes i do. i am not trying to start things on here it just sound like some of the older guys at my club who dont fly and sit around and bash others for there flyin. and yes the "Craptor" is just what you said with the fishing lures all thesse companys are makein flashy plane take new polts can relate to. most new polts are younger. this is the planes there growing up with it what they know.

sorry for the long post and this post was not to start stuff just show another point of veiw

RE: 2nd plane -- Pulse XT or 4 Star?
 

To me the 4* looks like a cartoon airplane , I like the goofy kinds of look. lol Was one of the deciding factors , when I built it.
And please don`t take this wrong, but if we all flew the same thing, it would take away a huge part of the hobby . And no I have`nt flown the Pulse, but I have smucked my share of Twist .It`s all good, no worries :D

RE: 2nd plane -- Pulse XT or 4 Star?
 

Well, That's a mouthfull. What is the point of this rambling? Does this mean that flyers out there have to buy and fly older planes just because they have been around longer? The Pulse is just a newer plane with fresher thoughts put into the design and obviously since it's designed different it's going to fly somewhat different and look different. I have owned both and flown both and would rather have the Pulse anyday. It has more features and is a newer design and doesn't look like an out dated crop duster. "Veggie Burger?" Yeah right! Whatever!

RE: 2nd plane -- Pulse XT or 4 Star?
 

So then we should limit the choices of available "ARF's" to only those that "have withstood the test of time"?

And forgo all low wing lightly loaded planes like the Pulse, Super Sportster, etc.?

IMHO the "Classics" are just that. You can fly a stick if you wish, or you can purchase something else.

If I want to fly a classic I fly one, when I don't I don't.

Why do we or anyone for that matter HAVE to pay homage to the history of aviation?

Why do we HAVE to care?

It's up to individual choice. If you're interested, you do so.


The Pulse is not an inferior plane, it handles well and it lands at a walking speed ( I don't know why Insane says it has a higher landing speed than others, but it slows down to land FAR better than most sticks as the wing loading is so low... ).


Why get so upset that people are not necessarily choosing your first choice?

I guess I'll go eat my "Veggie Burger" and avoid those nasty clogged arteries...

RE: 2nd plane -- Pulse XT or 4 Star?
 

[quote][/The Pulse is not an inferior plane, it handles well and it lands at a walking speed ( I don't know why Insane says it has a higher landing speed than others, but it slows down to land FAR better than most sticks as the wing loading is so low... ). quote]
I did`nt say that. Geez , fly what you want , as long as it make you happy.

RE: 2nd plane -- Pulse XT or 4 Star?
 

What is different or fresh about the Pulse? It's just a Four Star clone with a cowling thrown on it. It fills a need in Hangar 9's product lineup, so in that respect it's certainly useful to Hangar 9. If you're going to copy an airframe design, the Four Star is certainly a good source to draw from. The Phoenix Models Dolphin .40 is another good Four Star derivative, and would be a good choice for someone's second airplane.

I wasn't telling flyers what they "have to buy," I'm merely suggesting that erring on the side of a time-tested design is usually a good idea if you're trying to decide between a couple of different airplanes. How does the Pulse XT hold up after three or four seasons of flying? Nobody knows, because it hasn't been available for three or four seasons.

Again, I never tried to tell anybody what they could or could not buy. The original poster was trying to decide between a classical airframe design or one of its modern imitators, I was simply making the argument for choosing the time tested design. The Pulse XT is a nice looking, nice flying aircraft and I'm glad that rcelment and opjose are enjoying theirs.

Telling somebody that they should fly the Pulse XT instead of the Four Star, however, is like telling somebody that they should watch "The Longest Yard" with Adam Sandler instead of the original movie starring Burt Reynolds because the new movie was recorded with a Dolby Digital soundtrack. Watch whichever one you want, or don't watch either. My only point was that "new and shiny" rarely translates into "better" especially when evaluating quality. If an airframe design wasn't really good, however, it wouldn't be able to thrive in the marketplace year after year in spite of the constant barrage of new designs and advertising campaigns.

Everybody knows that the Four Star is a time-tested quality design. Hopefully the Pulse XT will stand the test of time as well.

RE: 2nd plane -- Pulse XT or 4 Star?
 

Ah, ok, thanks. I took your post totally the wrong way. Mea Culpa.

There is indeed something to be said for things that are "known" to work.