Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > Kit Building
Reload this Page >

168 inch SIg Rascal kit !!!! :O

Notices
Kit Building If you're building a kit and have questions or want to discuss kit building post it here.

168 inch SIg Rascal kit !!!! :O

Old 08-25-2017, 09:50 AM
  #176  
acdii
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Capron, IL
Posts: 9,975
Received 95 Likes on 86 Posts
Default

There are a few things that can be done to reduce the weight, provided of course the builder has the skills to do so.

Replace the plywood parts with foam, carbon fiber and balsa, the tail itself weighs in at 3 pounds when built by the book. If using a removable tail, there is metal hardware, bolts and T-nuts, not too sure using nylon would work due to the stresses place on that section. Moving servos forward, though that makes for a very long elevator pushrod, which leads to unknown flexing, and adding supports to the fuse to prevent it may offset any weight savings. You can move the rudder servo forward and use pull-pull to save a couple ounces, while keeping the elevator servo in the tail. Shave 2 pounds off the tail should shave 6 or more off the nose.

The landing gear is HEAVY! I don't recall the exact weight, but it ERR'd my postal scale, which means it exceeded 4 pounds. Replacing that with a formed wire gear emulating that used on a Cub may work, or use a lighter Carbon Fiber gear.

The wing is heavy, replacing the main spar with carbon fiber will not only increase the strength but also make it lighter. Alternatively adding wing tubes behind the main spar will increase the strength where it appears to be the weakest, which should allow the plane to fly without spars, and that would eliminate 3 pounds, which is what the struts weigh. Not much else can be done to reduce weight in the wing without major redesign, or expense.

If all these mods help reduce 10 pounds off the plane, then you should be able to use it for a candy bomber.
Old 08-25-2017, 10:03 AM
  #177  
FlyerInOKC
My Feedback: (6)
 
FlyerInOKC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 13,643
Received 166 Likes on 151 Posts
Default

I would look at the cost of each option the Rascal 168 kit isn't cheap.
Old 08-25-2017, 10:19 AM
  #178  
acdii
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Capron, IL
Posts: 9,975
Received 95 Likes on 86 Posts
Default

The hardest part would be locating the carbon fiber needed for this. I haven't found 1/2" square CF tubing yet. I can find round, but not enough gluing surface to make a good connection to the foam.
Old 08-25-2017, 10:55 AM
  #179  
mogman
Senior Member
 
mogman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Pitt Meadows, BC, CANADA
Posts: 862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I was planning on putting my 168 on floats, before I even received the kit.
After it was built and turned out to be the weight it was, I forgot that idea.

Dave.
Old 08-25-2017, 11:20 AM
  #180  
Steelie
My Feedback: (18)
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Clarkston, MI
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by acdii View Post
The hardest part would be locating the carbon fiber needed for this. I haven't found 1/2" square CF tubing yet. I can find round, but not enough gluing surface to make a good connection to the foam.
See the .315 selection of this web page:
Carbon Fiber Squares with Square Holes | Page 1 of 1
Good prices.
Old 08-25-2017, 11:25 AM
  #181  
Horsepoweraviation
My Feedback: (50)
 
Horsepoweraviation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 1,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by pappy35 View Post
The plane is already very heavy. Add an even heavier engine (though arguably this might help with the balance weight otherwise needed) AND carry ten pounds of candy? I'm not sure this is the plane for that duty. Keep the safety of the kids in mind also. Something like a Senior Telemaster (or whatever is currently available as a kit or plans) might be a better choice given the now known structural problems this airplane has sans struts.
I fly 80-125 lbs. planes (1/2 scale all the way up to a 1/1) This plane is plenty strong enough. It does have a weak point. Its a simple fix....put the struts on or reinforce the center section of the wing..
This plane will have NO PROBLEMS with a 10 lb load.

HPA
Old 08-25-2017, 11:32 AM
  #182  
Horsepoweraviation
My Feedback: (50)
 
Horsepoweraviation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 1,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thumbs up

Originally Posted by acdii View Post
There are a few things that can be done to reduce the weight, provided of course the builder has the skills to do so.

Replace the plywood parts with foam, carbon fiber and balsa, the tail itself weighs in at 3 pounds when built by the book. If using a removable tail, there is metal hardware, bolts and T-nuts, not too sure using nylon would work due to the stresses place on that section. Moving servos forward, though that makes for a very long elevator pushrod, which leads to unknown flexing, and adding supports to the fuse to prevent it may offset any weight savings. You can move the rudder servo forward and use pull-pull to save a couple ounces, while keeping the elevator servo in the tail. Shave 2 pounds off the tail should shave 6 or more off the nose.

The landing gear is HEAVY! I don't recall the exact weight, but it ERR'd my postal scale, which means it exceeded 4 pounds. Replacing that with a formed wire gear emulating that used on a Cub may work, or use a lighter Carbon Fiber gear.

The wing is heavy, replacing the main spar with carbon fiber will not only increase the strength but also make it lighter. Alternatively adding wing tubes behind the main spar will increase the strength where it appears to be the weakest, which should allow the plane to fly without spars, and that would eliminate 3 pounds, which is what the struts weigh. Not much else can be done to reduce weight in the wing without major redesign, or expense.

If all these mods help reduce 10 pounds off the plane, then you should be able to use it for a candy bomber.
I agree...

HPA
Old 08-25-2017, 12:15 PM
  #183  
oliveDrab
 
oliveDrab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Georgetown, KY
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by pappy35 View Post
...Something like a Senior Telemaster (or whatever is currently available as a kit or plans) might be a better choice given the now known structural problems this airplane has sans struts.
One of the Telemasters had a problem with the wing cracking. Can't remember which one.
Old 09-06-2017, 08:26 PM
  #184  
Moutianman
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default Foam

I am getting floats for my rascal. Made of all foam 82.5 inches from seaplanesupply. If it cg's and I am using a da120 what do you think of my odds f it flying are?
Old 09-14-2017, 06:22 AM
  #185  
mogman
Senior Member
 
mogman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Pitt Meadows, BC, CANADA
Posts: 862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I have the same floats from seaplane supply.
I had every intention of putting my 168 on floats, but with the weight it turned out to be, and the wing issues, I really don't trust this plane, so I think all the gear is coming out of it and the plane gets shelved. Expensive project!
I tried flying mine (before the wing issues were known) with a Saito 90cc 3 cyl gasser and it showed absolutely no inclination to fly (on a 500ft. grass strip.)
Old 09-19-2017, 03:44 PM
  #186  
Moutianman
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default Floats

Originally Posted by mogman View Post
I have the same floats from seaplane supply.
I had every intention of putting my 168 on floats, but with the weight it turned out to be, and the wing issues, I really don't trust this plane, so I think all the gear is coming out of it and the plane gets shelved. Expensive project!
I tried flying mine (before the wing issues were known) with a Saito 90cc 3 cyl gasser and it showed absolutely no inclination to fly (on a 500ft. grass strip.)
I sure would live to talk to you on the phone about this tons of questions.
Old 09-19-2017, 05:47 PM
  #187  
mogman
Senior Member
 
mogman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Pitt Meadows, BC, CANADA
Posts: 862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

PM sent.
Old 09-20-2017, 03:17 AM
  #188  
Horsepoweraviation
My Feedback: (50)
 
Horsepoweraviation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 1,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Anyone know who wants a 168?

Fuse and tail feathers built

Have all updates including STRUT kit

I will post pictures later

Kit, wheels....have 1100 invested.........make offer?
HPA
Old 10-11-2017, 09:08 AM
  #189  
mogman
Senior Member
 
mogman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Pitt Meadows, BC, CANADA
Posts: 862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I have lost any interest in continuing with this project.
I'm stripping all the gear out of it.

It's very disappointing. After flying a 110 for many years, and then seeing the 168 kit, thinking "this will be a great flying airplane" and having it turn into an overweight turkey. A lot of money down the drain.

If anybody wants it, come and get it...free!

The only catch is I live in Western Canada and you have to come get it. Bring a big vehicle!

Best of luck to those still building this plane. I hope it works out for you.

Dave.
Old 10-12-2017, 04:55 PM
  #190  
foodstick
Thread Starter
 
foodstick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: ankeny, IA
Posts: 5,574
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 7 Posts
Default

I have to admit, after seeing the prototype in person, and starting the thread.. I really didn't think it would go this way....
Old 10-12-2017, 06:49 PM
  #191  
Hydro Junkie
 
Hydro Junkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 10,357
Received 125 Likes on 119 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by mogman View Post
I have lost any interest in continuing with this project.
I'm stripping all the gear out of it.

It's very disappointing. After flying a 110 for many years, and then seeing the 168 kit, thinking "this will be a great flying airplane" and having it turn into an overweight turkey. A lot of money down the drain.

If anybody wants it, come and get it...free!

The only catch is I live in Western Canada and you have to come get it. Bring a big vehicle!

Best of luck to those still building this plane. I hope it works out for you.

Dave.
Are you serious? Just giving it away????
If I can make the room at my house, I might take it since I only live 150 Km from Pitt Meadows Elementary School. Of course, I'd need to know just how big of vehicle I'd need since I have a short bed S-10 and a Tahoe to work with though, if need be, I might be able to rent a cargo trailer to haul it in since both rigs are set up to tow
Old 10-12-2017, 08:18 PM
  #192  
mogman
Senior Member
 
mogman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Pitt Meadows, BC, CANADA
Posts: 862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

The long bit is the fuse 8ft.
Wing c/section is 6ft, 2 outer panels are 4 ft.
I've stripped every bit of gear out of it.

Know anyone looking for a 1/2 scale (156")Spacewalker, 3W 200. Last flew at Monster planes in 2010. Will need radio gear upgrading etc. This is not free!!!

(PS... I used to run hydros a good number of years ago. Did speed trials at Twin Lakes.)

Last edited by mogman; 10-12-2017 at 08:21 PM.
Old 10-12-2017, 08:26 PM
  #193  
Hydro Junkie
 
Hydro Junkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 10,357
Received 125 Likes on 119 Posts
Default

No chance it will fit in the S-10, have to check the Tahoe to see if it might work. If not, I've got to talk to "THE BOSS" about renting a trailer. A smaller U-Haul would probably work, for me anyway, just have to get the required approval

Okay, throw the "Twin Lakes Speed Trials" at me. I only live 10Km away from the lake

Last edited by Hydro Junkie; 10-12-2017 at 08:56 PM.
Old 10-18-2017, 07:23 AM
  #194  
mogman
Senior Member
 
mogman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Pitt Meadows, BC, CANADA
Posts: 862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I sent a review of the 168 to Sig.




This plane does not live up to it's hype. It requires a VERY LARGE amount of nose weight to balance, even when using a heavy gas engine. It weighs considerably more than the advertised flying weight.
It does, however have a unique and innovative fuselage construction.
Wings were breaking and Sig had to come up with a wing strut retrofit kit.
As far as I know Sig never flew a prototype with a gas engine. There is NO way this plane will fly with the advertised 50-60cc gas motor, it's just too heavy.
This plane needs to be withdrawn from the market and re-designed with lighter materials. The wings are also very heavy, especially the center section.
I have flown a Rascal 110 for many years and thought that the 168 would be as good. Unfortunately, that has turned out to be not the case.
Mine showed no inclination to fly with a Saito 90cc 3 cyl gas engine. I have stripped all the gear out of it and will not continue on with it. A lot of money down the drain. You can read the build threads on RCU and RCG



The plane needs a lot more development before being released to the public. It was rushed to production and we, the builders, were to be the beta testers. Not the way to do it!

I cannot, in all honesty, recommend this kit.

Dave.

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.