brsseb

My PT-40 trainer is almost done, just some small covering bits left and radio setup. But winter is here so it wont fly for a good few weeks or so into the new year. But having your workshop idle during the winter seems pretty much like a waste of time , so I need a new "fix" soon before the CA walks out of the bottle by itself . Ive already buildt several kits, but havent acutally flown an rc plane for real yet. So im in a position where I feel that I can take on a more advanced kit (after the other smaller and cheaper quality kits ive built before, the GP PT-40 was pretty much a walk in the park) , but still cant pick a plane that I wont be able to fly even after mastering my Trainer.

So I need some directions:

*The kitbuilder inside me wants me to get my hands on the GP Corsair 40 or the P-51 Mustang Kit. Those airplanes both look lovely and definetly got a scale feeling in them. The construction seems pretty ok, with some challenges in it. But the pilot in me tells me its gonna go 3 feet and then brake into 1000 pieces (aka, they are damn hard to fly).

*The pilot in me wants a Pete n Poke. Love the ww2-look of it, and that its almost like a Trainer. Its cheap too. But the kit dont come with prefabricaded LE and TE, and requires ALOT of sanding, which is my worst kitbuilder nightmare. And with the need for a incronometer (or whatever its called in english ), the price gets rather high.

*The GP RV-4 is just so sweetlooking I almost want to buy a fullsize kit of it instead and fly around all day . With optional flaps and good scaleish look its a good candidate. But after searching around ive heard its not up to GP Kit standard, both in terms of wood quality, manual instruction and plastic part quality. Kit builder in me says no..[&o]

*Super Sportster MkII is an ok looking low-wing 2ndplane. It seems like the construction is pretty strait forward, and it got a balsacowl instead of the ugly square trainerlook that other 2ndplanes seems to have. The Kitbuilder in me is pleased. The pilot in me is happy thats its "a recommended 2nd plane" (TM), but might be too fast on landings..?.

You might wonder why Ive just considered Great Planes kit, its because thats the kits my LHS sells. Got a few Pilot-kits (OK Model), but thats just Extra`s with a 400* rollrate). Looked into Sig, but wit the nearest dealer located in Germany, the import tax kills off that idea. So no Sig 4*..shame...

Anyway, this is my (somewhat crazy) reasoning so far. Anyone can give me some aditional pointers about these kits, perhaps put some extra pros or cons on the kits, I would be greatful .

JNorton

My Feedback: (2)

Consider a Rapture 40. I think it is better looking than the Sportster and it uses GP more modern building techniques.
http://www2.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin...?&I=LXFHG4&P=0

John

dicknadine

Morning. why not trying your hand at building from a plan, not a kit? there's plenty of beginner models available. assuming that Balsa sheets and sticks are available to you. sounds like your ready to try it. try it and ASK for help when you find a problem, we, the RCU group will be happy to help you solve the minor problems and there are a few. dick in South Mississippi,USA

MinnFlyer

My Feedback: (4)

Why not get a Flight simulater and spend some time getting ready for spring by learning the basics?

cwrr5

My Feedback: (32)

Or do all three! (see above)

brsseb

Thanks for the reply. Ive already got a couple of sims and keep practising my skills there. While making from a plan sounds cool, I like the idea of buying a kit that is pretty much complete with all the parts needed for basic assembly. And with the lovely-cut interlocking features of the PT-40, Im totally hooked!. And yes, Ive sent a mail to my LHS asking if they can get hold of the Rapture kit. It does seems more modern in design than the SS, yes. The uncovered picture of it on the GP site just scream interlock all the way !

phread59

The Rapture would be my choice. The second one would be the SS. Another good second plane would be the Extra Easy. All GP kits. Should be easy to get ahold of. And by the way the 2 warbird kits are actually sport scale. They fly easier than they look. But as a second plane they are kinda shakey. They could be used. But best left to later.

Mark Shuman

Fubar-One

My Feedback: (1)

I recently maidened my Super Sportster 20 and it, at least, isnt really that fast on landings compared to some Ive built and flown. The 20 doesnt exactly float in but does land smoothly at a decent speed.
Unfortunately, I built it for a .25FP and it could use some more power but a BB engine wont fit without completely butchering the nose and rebuilding it.
I would have built in my Irvine .25 but decided the red finish of the engine would ruin the Steelers color scheme. I have since added a Macs one piece pipe to it and it has more oomph.
Anyway, I like the design of the plane so much I also have waiting in the wings a Super Sportster 60, Super Sportster Bipe, an RCM Sportster, a Super Sportster 40 (gonna do the twin engine conversion on that), and a second mostly built Super Sportster 20 that some dude at the field just handed me one day.
The SS 40MKII is an updated version of the above kits with more detailed instructions, etc. If ya like building, that one will keep you busy.
Oh, the pilot for my SS20 is The Bus, number 36 Jerome Bettis.

MinnFlyer

My Feedback: (4)

You could always build that Corsair or P-51 and hang it up from your shop ceiling to give to a constant reminder of your goal

CafeenMan

In case you didn't know, there are other manufacturers besides Great Planes. I think their kits are severely lacking - particularly in engineering and materials. In fact, of all the kits I've built (which have been numerous) I've never known a manufacturer to take more shortcuts than GP and people who think that GP knows what they're doing emulate their design style and come up with more designs having the same problems.

Anyway, for your second build, look at a shoulder wing model such as the Sig Kavalier, or Sig Mid-Star. The Mid Star will be easier to build. The Kavalier is an excellent airplane and one that is properly engineered, but it's also an old kit and hasn't got the modern touches such as laser cutting. Even so, the Kavalier truly is a Great Plane.

[link=http://www.sigmfg.com/cgi-bin/dpsmart.exe/ProductsV4.html?L+Sig+fptm6653+_Ddp_5fSearch1_02A_ 2dPlaneRCKavalier_01Search_02Index_01]* Sig Kavalier[/link]

[link=http://www.sigmfg.com/cgi-bin/dpsmart.exe/ProductsV4.html?L+Sig+fptm6653+_Ddp_5fSearch1_02A_ 2dPlaneRCMStar40_01Search_02Index_01]* Sig Mid Star 40[/link]

MinnFlyer

My Feedback: (4)

Interesting you say that Paul. I have always liked GP kit - mostly FOR their engineering.

CafeenMan

I expect flames to come and everyone is free to disagree with me as long as people realize that those who do are always wrong.

Ok, seriously, I guess I should clarify since I said it. The engineering of GP kits to me is obviously for two reasons - neither of which is to create the best possible airframe.

Reason 1 = cutting costs. The kits just look like they try to save on the bottom line at the expense of using proper materials. No, I do not expect any manufacturer to hand-select each and every piece of wood. I know that kit prices would double if they did that. But I also think that there is too much lite ply (any is too much) in GP kits and a lot of other things that I would never even consider doing as a designer. Their kits build into planes that for each 5 lbs could weigh about a pound less if they were designed right and better materials were chosen. I admit that I'm comparing to a scratch build of the same plane where the materials are hand selected. Even so, kits I've built from some other manufacturers could not be brought in that much lighter. For example, if I scratched a Herr kit, I doubt I could get it more than about 10% lighter just swapping materials.

Reason 2 = Easy to build. I think they do a lot of stuff that makes the airframe heavier with a lower strength to weight ratio just to make the plane snap together. I think that's ok for a primary trainer and secondary trainer, but when it comes to performance kits then a little more work should be considered normal to have an excellent flying model.

Last thing... it's been a long time since I actually built a Great Planes kit. I did build several of them and swore at them the whole time I was building for various reasons that are pretty much covered by the above. I hated building them, but by then I had built some very good kits from other manufacturers and was also scratch building, so I knew the difference. And that's what really scares me. I think a lot of people coming into the hobby don't know any better and believe the marketing hype. They think that Great Planes is the defacto standard. Then they go off and design their own planes and pretty much copy GP's style.

I have a Robbe Pitts I wish I could spill out in this thread to show what a really high quality kit looks like. The cost was comparable to a GP kit. I got it on trade for carving a fuselage plug for a .15 racer, but I think it was about $125.00.

nitrobasher

My Feedback: (2)

I'm lookin into my second kit as well, for next year i mean. but the Sig somethin' extra looks like the winner. I loev the look and it looks as easy to build as the four star


ps. am i the only one who thinks that the midstar/ kavalier is kinda... well. ugly?

CafeenMan

The Kavalier is just another Ugly Stik but with a canopy. I like it, but I don't care for the looks of the mid-star. Looks aren't really important when you're training though. The most important thing is to learn to build and to learn to fly. Once you've finished your training then style can be more of a consideration.

brsseb

Mailed my not-so-localHS and they told me that the Rapture would be in stock early next year.

It sickens me to see that the prices in the US for RCmodels are 1/3 of that here in Norway. The Rapture Kit clocks in on around $200 i guess. And importing is no good either, with all the shipment and tolltax it gets just as expensive