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

SIG Rascal 168 Build and Kit review

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

SIG Rascal 168 Build and Kit review

Old 07-05-2017, 08:45 AM
  #251  
Captcrunch44
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: dysart, IA
Posts: 1,730
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
Default

I built the 168 per instructions to prove that the plane would fly as designed. And despite my reputation I flew it like any normal person would that just built a 1200 dollar airplane. Was so scared the first couple flights, and I thought it was going to work but after a few more it failed. So I guess we will just have to wait and see what SIG says. I still however recommend struts on this aircraft and anyone that is building one to do so. It is an easy application and will save all the hard work everone has put into or is going to put into this plane.
If you need proof of concept, i have a 11 foot cadet senior with a 2 foot cord. And it has no means of connecting the to wing panels together. It has 4 nylon bolts to hold the center section to the fuselage and struts to hold the wing panels on the plane. Much like any full scale Cessna.
Old 07-05-2017, 09:14 AM
  #252  
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

It would be nice to hear from the other 40+ people who were in on the first run of kits.
I wonder if any are finished and flying yet?

Dave.
Old 07-05-2017, 09:53 AM
  #253  
Captcrunch44
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: dysart, IA
Posts: 1,730
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
Default

I would too.
Old 07-06-2017, 06:51 AM
  #254  
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 received this from Sig this morning.



Dear Rascal 168 Owner:

You may have heard reports in recent weeks of wing failures on the Rascal 168. Please understand that SIG Manufacturing is very concerned about these failures and has conducted an investigation into the cause of the two reported failures. Based on the information we collected, we have determined that the likely cause of the wing failures was due to the one or both of the following factors:



1. Overpowering the airplane by installing a power plant that exceeds the recommended sizing found in the instruction manual.

2. Performing aggressive aerobatic maneuvers.





Sig is currently working on an upgrade kit which will add an extra layer of structural integrity to the airframe. The upgrade kit is currently being tested and will be supplied to you at no charge as soon as testing is complete. We expect this kit to be available in the coming weeks. In the meantime we are asking all Rascal 168 owners to refrain from flying their airplanes until the upgrade is available and installed. We will contact you again by email with further details once testing is complete.



While we are going to be providing this upgrade to you, we want to stress that this is not an aerobatic airplane and needs to be powered and flown following the recommendations in the instruction manual.





Regards,

Cliff Nadolna P.E.

Director of Operations
Old 07-06-2017, 10:18 AM
  #255  
acdii
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Capron, IL
Posts: 9,996
Received 97 Likes on 88 Posts
Default

I may consider selling mine. I wont decide until I can get a full flight and use at least a half tank of fuel. If it bores me, I will gut the engine and electronics and list it for sale. I feel the plane may be a waste of the DA-100.
Old 07-06-2017, 04:47 PM
  #256  
Flight Risk
My Feedback: (1)
 
Flight Risk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Rocky Flats, CO
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 8 Posts
Default

I wonder if Sig is looking into struts? It may not be an aerobatic plane, but it should be capable of simple loops and rolls. And at the weights they seem to be coming out at, don't they need more than the recommended power? I'm wondering if the smaller Rascals typically needed extra nose weight.
Old 07-06-2017, 06:00 PM
  #257  
Hydro Junkie
 
Hydro Junkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 10,523
Received 130 Likes on 123 Posts
Default

Is it possible that the powers that be at Sig are trying to pass on the problems found in the 168 wing as owner created issues? Even Boeing found that preventing wing twist in flight resulted in a more efficient wing for speed, lift and fuel economy. It sounds to me like this plane needs some "beefing up" in the wing structure as well as struts added to keep the plane flying
Old 07-06-2017, 07:45 PM
  #258  
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

Originally Posted by Flight Risk
I'm wondering if the smaller Rascals typically needed extra nose weight.

My 110 needed no extra weight, Zenoah G26 and batteries up against the firewall....fantastic flying plane!

Dave.
Old 07-24-2017, 04:16 PM
  #259  
wheels
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Edmonton, AB, CANADA
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by mogman
My 110 needed no extra weight, Zenoah G26 and batteries up against the firewall....fantastic flying plane!

Dave.
Ditto, g26 and servos in the tail worked perfect on my 110... one of the best flying planes I've had in 20 years of this hobby. It's how I wound up here, I think a 168 with a 150cc would be amazing... looks like wait and see might be the right move for now, though if you ask me the rascal crash seen in this thread was pilot induced.
Old 07-24-2017, 04:39 PM
  #260  
Captcrunch44
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: dysart, IA
Posts: 1,730
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by wheels
Ditto, g26 and servos in the tail worked perfect on my 110... one of the best flying planes I've had in 20 years of this hobby. It's how I wound up here, I think a 168 with a 150cc would be amazing... looks like wait and see might be the right move for now, though if you ask me the rascal crash seen in this thread was pilot induced.
O boy I can't even tell you how disappointed i am in what people are saying. I Realize that alot of the time it is and Believe me i have buried a few airplanes myself due to pilot error. But in this case it was not despite what people my think or speculate on how I flew the plane, it is starting to upset me. I did not fly this plane in any adverse manner. I flew the plane at sig with plenty of people watching me fly every flight and the night it fell apart i was in front of the club showing off this new and vary cool plane. I have up until now kept my mouth shut but (darn it ). The wing broke and it was not do to flying in a manner that would provoke a wing failure.
I know sig is working on the problem and everyone else that has not had a chance to fly there's yet will get a fix before there wing fails.
Old 07-24-2017, 07:23 PM
  #261  
wheels
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Edmonton, AB, CANADA
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Captcrunch44
O boy I can't even tell you how disappointed i am in what people are saying. I Realize that alot of the time it is and Believe me i have buried a few airplanes myself due to pilot error. But in this case it was not despite what people my think or speculate on how I flew the plane, it is starting to upset me. I did not fly this plane in any adverse manner. I flew the plane at sig with plenty of people watching me fly every flight and the night it fell apart i was in front of the club showing off this new and vary cool plane. I have up until now kept my mouth shut but (darn it ). The wing broke and it was not do to flying in a manner that would provoke a wing failure.
I know sig is working on the problem and everyone else that has not had a chance to fly there's yet will get a fix before there wing fails.
I wasn't trying to rub your nose in it, but here are the facts... you built what amounts to a half scale free flight airframe out of ply and balsa, you put double the recommended engine on it then you firewalled it in (at best) level flight, banked, and pulled up. If Sig does anything for you that is testament to their stellar customer service not completely faultless action on your part. We all lose planes due to our own silly actions... forget to charge batteries, reverse ailerons, overestimating our own abilities... whatever. I'm sure this was a painful one, it would have been for me, I hope it helps you avoid anything similar in the future.
Old 07-25-2017, 04:27 AM
  #262  
Captcrunch44
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: dysart, IA
Posts: 1,730
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
Default

Wheels
May be you should get your facts straight. I built mine per instructions!!
Old 07-25-2017, 05:31 AM
  #263  
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

As far as we know Sig never flew a prototype with a gas engine, electric only.
Given the weight these planes are ending up and the amount of weight needed up front to balance it, and the fact that one member here says the plane needed every bit of power from a 100cc to get off the ground, I really don't think that the plane would fly with Sig's recommended engine size..50-60cc.
Mine, with a Saito 90cc 3 cyl at 56-58 lbs showed absolutely no inclination to fly.

I think all of us on these forums have built the plane "by the book" and it's turning out to be a bit of a dud.

We'll have to wait and see what Sig's "structural update" is going to be....perhaps wing struts?
Old 07-25-2017, 06:53 AM
  #264  
wheels
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Edmonton, AB, CANADA
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Captcrunch44
Wheels
May be you should get your facts straight. I built mine per instructions!!
I didn't say anything contrary to that.
Old 07-25-2017, 07:26 AM
  #265  
acdii
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Capron, IL
Posts: 9,996
Received 97 Likes on 88 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by wheels
I didn't say anything contrary to that.
That video is not of Crunch's plane. I was at the fly in with him, and he didn't exert more than average forces on the plane when he flew there. That video was someone elses plane with a much larger engine on it. As stated by others, this plane, when built by the book will never get off the ground with the recommended power plant. Even with a 100CC on the nose it requires 7 pounds of lead.

When he flew it, I was keeping a close eye on the wings and they were flapping. There is no doubt in my mind that this plane must have struts, the first video of the wing coming apart on a standard turn, the wing flapping I saw, and then subsequent failure are proof.

Regardless of how big the engine is, whether it is a 60cc or 85cc, the amount of weight needed to balance it, and the way it flew, that wing would have snapped. Even with the triangle stock I added and other structural improvements, I am skeptical that the spar will hold without the struts I made.

Unless you were there to see it, or have built and flown one of these, don't arm chair quarterback what you don't know about.

This kit is a really nice building kit, but there is an obvious flaw in the wing design, and there definitely needs to have some modifications done to the kit to address the overly heavy tail.

As it sits now, I have lost complete interest in the plane and feel like I pissed away a couple grand now that could have been better spent. If SIG doesn't come up with a fix for this to rebuild my confidence, then chances are, I won't be buying another SIG for quite some time.
Old 07-25-2017, 09:40 PM
  #266  
wheels
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Edmonton, AB, CANADA
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by acdii
That video is not of Crunch's plane. I was at the fly in with him, and he didn't exert more than average forces on the plane when he flew there. That video was someone elses plane with a much larger engine on it. As stated by others, this plane, when built by the book will never get off the ground with the recommended power plant. Even with a 100CC on the nose it requires 7 pounds of lead.

When he flew it, I was keeping a close eye on the wings and they were flapping. There is no doubt in my mind that this plane must have struts, the first video of the wing coming apart on a standard turn, the wing flapping I saw, and then subsequent failure are proof.

Regardless of how big the engine is, whether it is a 60cc or 85cc, the amount of weight needed to balance it, and the way it flew, that wing would have snapped. Even with the triangle stock I added and other structural improvements, I am skeptical that the spar will hold without the struts I made.

Unless you were there to see it, or have built and flown one of these, don't arm chair quarterback what you don't know about.

This kit is a really nice building kit, but there is an obvious flaw in the wing design, and there definitely needs to have some modifications done to the kit to address the overly heavy tail.

As it sits now, I have lost complete interest in the plane and feel like I pissed away a couple grand now that could have been better spent. If SIG doesn't come up with a fix for this to rebuild my confidence, then chances are, I won't be buying another SIG for quite some time.
If that's the case then it seems pretty unreasonable of him to be taking offense at something I said about the incident in that video... all of the things I pointed out are true in that case and my comments had nothing to do with him or how he built his plane.

As far as armchair quarterbacking... give me a break, speculating about crash causes is probably 30% of the hobby for most of us and we've all drawn conclusions on WAY less information than can be found in that video because typically you can't re-watch what happened or make sure your eyes are focused on the plane at exactly the right moment.
Old 07-25-2017, 09:49 PM
  #267  
wheels
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Edmonton, AB, CANADA
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by acdii
That video is not of Crunch's plane. I was at the fly in with him, and he didn't exert more than average forces on the plane when he flew there. That video was someone elses plane with a much larger engine on it. As stated by others, this plane, when built by the book will never get off the ground with the recommended power plant. Even with a 100CC on the nose it requires 7 pounds of lead.

When he flew it, I was keeping a close eye on the wings and they were flapping. There is no doubt in my mind that this plane must have struts, the first video of the wing coming apart on a standard turn, the wing flapping I saw, and then subsequent failure are proof.

Regardless of how big the engine is, whether it is a 60cc or 85cc, the amount of weight needed to balance it, and the way it flew, that wing would have snapped. Even with the triangle stock I added and other structural improvements, I am skeptical that the spar will hold without the struts I made.

Unless you were there to see it, or have built and flown one of these, don't arm chair quarterback what you don't know about.

This kit is a really nice building kit, but there is an obvious flaw in the wing design, and there definitely needs to have some modifications done to the kit to address the overly heavy tail.

As it sits now, I have lost complete interest in the plane and feel like I pissed away a couple grand now that could have been better spent. If SIG doesn't come up with a fix for this to rebuild my confidence, then chances are, I won't be buying another SIG for quite some time.
Back to the actual thread subject you make a great point about the balance and the two issues leave me leaning away from buying a sig kit and toward taking the moments/shapes of my 110 and blowing them up as a scratch project. Maybe some time in the next year or two.

A pity about the wing design, the fact that you could omit struts was very appealing they're a real hassle for me.
Old 07-27-2017, 02:18 PM
  #268  
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 wheels
Back to the actual thread subject you make a great point about the balance and the two issues leave me leaning away from buying a sig kit and toward taking the moments/shapes of my 110 and blowing them up as a scratch project. Maybe some time in the next year or two.

A pity about the wing design, the fact that you could omit struts was very appealing they're a real hassle for me.
Wheels,
Based on all of the comments you have made in this thread, it is clear....very clear,... You have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about.
You did not build a Rascal 168.
You have not flown a Rascal 168.
You do however have...seemingly... some sort of self-awarded level of expertise in all things balsa, plywood, and glue.
"Pity" as you say about omitting struts is very appealing to you, is an evident statement of your lack of necessary structural engineering for the airframe you have no experience with.
The pilots here that have done what you have not, are beyond your level.

Stick with what you know and leave the rest to us.

Last edited by Steelie; 07-27-2017 at 02:24 PM.
Old 07-27-2017, 02:41 PM
  #269  
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 wheels

As far as armchair quarterbacking... give me a break, speculating about crash causes is probably 30% of the hobby for most of us and we've all drawn conclusions on WAY less information....
I find it interesting that you have assigned a 30% value on some sort of average, for most of us.
People that do or say that kind of thing are also that person we have ALL heard say in conversation...."I guarantee you"....
And there is no guarantee for anything...but a HOPE is felt by the sayer... that all are persuaded by that rhetoric.

You have to be factual here. Not hopeful.

You do armchair-quarterback pretty good. Actually about 30% of us will believe you.That's it.

Cheers.

Last edited by Steelie; 07-27-2017 at 02:43 PM.
Old 07-27-2017, 03:32 PM
  #270  
wheels
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Edmonton, AB, CANADA
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Steelie
Wheels,
Based on all of the comments you have made in this thread, it is clear....very clear,... You have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about.
You did not build a Rascal 168.
You have not flown a Rascal 168.
You do however have...seemingly... some sort of self-awarded level of expertise in all things balsa, plywood, and glue.
"Pity" as you say about omitting struts is very appealing to you, is an evident statement of your lack of necessary structural engineering for the airframe you have no experience with.
The pilots here that have done what you have not, are beyond your level.

Stick with what you know and leave the rest to us.
"Us"? EXCELLENT since experts like you, who've all built and flown this particular model, all clearly understood that building it without struts is a laughable idea only fools like I would entertain.... then I'm sure you'd be happy to share with us all the modifications you made while building yours to compensate for this glaring error by the designer... it would mean that all these poor sig customers could be flying their rascals that much sooner, you wouldn't deny them the advice of someone "on your level" would you?

Re: the 30%, I let people decide for themselves whether, in this hobby, there's a great deal of discussion centered around the possible causes and preventative measures for crashes and structural failures in planes, and whether 30% sounds like an outlandish claim... it's not like there's an entire forum section devoted to it or anything, right? I'm glad you were good enough to quote me directly right before you shoved words in my mouth about "garauntees" though, I'll let people decide for themselves how valid that was as well.
Old 07-27-2017, 04:40 PM
  #271  
Chad Veich
My Feedback: (60)
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Litchfield Park, AZ
Posts: 7,674
Likes: 0
Received 25 Likes on 23 Posts
Default

Wheels if your intent was to come here and rub a bunch of people the wrong way, mission accomplished. Whether intended or not you come across as something of a know it all. Maybe time for some personal introspection?
Old 07-27-2017, 05:16 PM
  #272  
wheels
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Edmonton, AB, CANADA
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Not to concerned how I'm rubbing you or anyone else on the internet I'm afraid... maybe some introspection on why you think my opinions on toy airplanes are something decency dictates I should keep to myself, but your opinions on my character are no problem is in order?
Old 07-27-2017, 05:39 PM
  #273  
Chad Veich
My Feedback: (60)
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Litchfield Park, AZ
Posts: 7,674
Likes: 0
Received 25 Likes on 23 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by wheels
Not to concerned how I'm rubbing you or anyone else on the internet I'm afraid... maybe some introspection on why you think my opinions on toy airplanes are something decency dictates I should keep to myself, but your opinions on my character are no problem is in order?

Never said I thought you should keep your opinions to yourself. Only offered my opinion that your approach comes off as a bit abrasive and, apparently, some others would agree. If you are not concerned with how you come across to other folks with whom you choose to interact that is your prerogative.
Old 07-27-2017, 06:19 PM
  #274  
acdii
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Capron, IL
Posts: 9,996
Received 97 Likes on 88 Posts
Default

Unless you have something constructive regarding the Rascal 168, like building tips, engines, covering, etc. Please stop poisoning my thread. So far all you have done is pissed people off and rubbed them the wrong way.
Old 07-27-2017, 07:37 PM
  #275  
Hydro Junkie
 
Hydro Junkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 10,523
Received 130 Likes on 123 Posts
Default

Okay, time for everyone to take a chill before the admins lock this thread down.

That said, Acdii, I'm waiting to find out if struts make a difference with this plane. Are you going to fly it and let us know how things go or just hang it from the ceiling?

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.