I've done a forum search and have read some great information about what to build this winter as a second plane to my trainer and have decided on the Four Star 40 or 60.

My question is this. Is there any "real" difference between these two planes other than size? Would one handle "better" than the other as a second plane?

I would normally just go for the larger of the two, but then I would need to get a four-stroke .91 (just because) and they are quite a bit more money than a two-stroke .46 (which I understand is not too much engine, right?).

I think every other angle has been approached on the subject of these two planes, but I thought I'd throw in another. I appreciate any information.

harphunt

I've found the bigger planes usually handle better, and are easier to see. Yes, there is a bit of a cost difference too, as usual. The build is essentially the same, with of course a little bigger area needed for the bigger plane.

If space is not a prob, and cost is not to much of a prob, I'd go for the bigger bird. Especially if it's your second one, that will be a good kit to go with. You'll learn alot of techniques while building kits. The WOW factor will be a bit greater too with it, and if your getting your trainer down patt, it should be a good transition.

The .40 size planes are nice, real nice, even nicer for those that have space and money constraints, if you dont' have any of these constraints though...get the bigger one would be my vote.

I have built the 60 and it is great.If your worried about the expense of the 91 which I know is a lot.I took my 91 off for another project and replaced with a MDS68 which is not a lot ofmoney and is one awesome power plant.

It's a bit unfair to compare a more expensive 4stroke engine for the 4*60 against an less expensive 2stroke for the 4*40. As its namesake suggests, the 60 will fly quite nicely with a .61 or .75 2stroke, which can be had for less than $100 - not much more than a .46.

As for the kit, the difference is around $20. Now there will be some incremental price increases in the accesories (e.g. bigger tank, more covering, etc.) but the differences aren't really all that great.

Unless you're just strapped for cash (in which case you should really rethink getting knee-deep in RC in the first place ), try not to let the price dictate your choice. IMHO, the larger 4*60 is the way to go, especially since you're already leaning toward it already.

You're right, the difference in costs for the kits is minimal. I just assumed that a larger plane constituted a 4-stroke over a 2-stroke (not because I know any different). Does it? The cost isn't a main concern. I wondered if one of the two sizes was preferable and the cost could be used as a rational against the 60, if needed.

There are several 2-stroke engines that would fly that plane just fine. Nearly any 2-stroke .61++ would do great. OS FX's run about 149 or so, then there are the less expensive, like the ThunderTiger's, Magnum's, MDS's, etc... of these I've had best experience with the ThunderTigers. Matter of fact,,,,I've got a friend that's totally hooked on Tower's .75. I've seen this engine perform, and it's a winner, and less then a hundo($100), that would be a good choice for the 4star60. Really would.

You can definately go with a 4-stroke as well, as most are very friendly engines, I've had several of different varieties, and although slightly different then running 2-strokes, they can grow on you quick. The biggest diff I've found being that they need to be tuned with a tachometer for best performance/reliability. That's about it on that.

I'd vote for the Tower.75 2stroke though...the more I think about it.

A buddy of mine has a 4-Star 60 with a Thunder Tiger .61GP which costs in the $80-$90 range and it flies great and lands nice and slowly.

Either plane with the full wing is very easy to fly and I recommend either of them as a second airplane. They are hard to beat.

It just so happens that I have a Webra .61 in the box that I got from a neighbor..... . I assumed that the lower power 2-stroke would not be quite sufficient. I'm going to ask about this engine on another forum, but is this a "good" engine (I promise I'm not trying to start an arguement). Is it sufficeint for the four star 60. Ironically, a friend found an OS .40 FP in the woods while hunting, so I might have an engine for the *40 if it runs and the model "FP" (discontinued) is any good. I just got done rigging up an engine bench testing rig so that I can try to start both of them. Any thoughts on either engine? Thank you for all ideas and thoughts up 'til now.

The Webra would do just fine. They are somewhat known as a powerhouse engine, at least in my experience. For that 4*60 it would be absolutely fantastic. 2-strokes are far from lower power, far from it. They have a different power-band, and some don't have quite the low-end punch of a 4-stroke. You can easily compare a 4-stroke .91 to your Webra, and the Webra should hold it's own very very well, and surpass in alot of ways.
On the other hand, the OS FP .40....that was just a basic sport engine, bushings all the way(no bearings). Although it would fly any trainer plane nicely, and would even fly a 4*40, the performance would not be even close to what a 4*60 would be with a Webra .61. A 4*60 with a Webra .61 would be a screamer for sure. Just get someone with experience to give you a hand though, unless your up to the task. Never-the-less, that would be the way I would go if I had a .61 sitting there already.
This combo gets my vote.

My son and I chose the 4 Star 60 as our second plane with the thoughts that the larger plane would be a better choice because of its size. We also chose it because it it 's plans build with Flaperons. The 40 does not provide for flaperons you would have to do it on its own. We are going to use a Magnum 91 (it balanced almost perfectly) for our power plant. If the weather holds our maiden voyage is this Saturday. The pilot is both nervous and anxious and so is his dad.

What are flaperons?

I guess the best way to describe flaperons is they are the combination of flaps and ailerons. Using a servo in each wing and connecting one to the flaps slot on the receiver and one to the ailerons slots you are able to get both functions (providing your radio supports flaperons) without building seperate flaps.

Both are good choices, but bigger does fly better. I built the 40 as my second plane. It did ok. Since then, I've flown several other 40s and 60s and prefer the flight characteristics of the sig 60.

If your Webra runs fine, I would opt for the larger 60 size plane.

my 2 cents...

An even better choice is neither . Instead, look at the Venture 60 by Bruce Tharpe Engineering. Bruce is the original designer of the Four Star (when he worked for SIG). But he now has his own company, the flagship of which is the Venture 60.

The Venture 60 is the 'next generation' of the Four Star. While the two are quite similar, the V60 is clearly an updated design.

Check out the Venture60 web site.

I vote 4*60, I learned with a Eagle II, had the 4*60 ready the day i totaled the Eagle, one month training, It took me one lesson to fly the 4*60. Get it if you can afford it. KB 60 2 stroke powere it ok. have enya 91 4 stroke now.
Bill

I first flew 4*40 and later flew a 4*60, I flew a Contender 40 then and Contender 60, and I flew a Sig Kougar and later King Cobra. The 60 versions are good fliers, easier to see, but lack spirit, quickness, and mobility that I like when flying. The difference really shows between the Kougar and King Cobra. One is a sport plane and the other is a 1970's early 80's pattern plane. That best describes the difference between all scaled up versions of the same plane.

Hi Harphunt: Good to hear from you again. I'm one of those that prefer a trike gear setup. Therefore my vote goes to the Carl Goldberg Tiger 2 or Tiger 60. I've owned both with a Saito 91 in them. While the Tiger 2 had a little better vertical, the 6o knife edges better, go figure. Now to completely contradict myself i'm thinking about a Dynaflite(I cringe when that word gets mentioned, to much carve, and sand to shape involved) Chipmunk, or 4*120 with the RCS 1.4 gas engine for my next project. I am leaning to the 4* 120 because I will not hesitate to turn it into a trike gear, because while I can set the tiger 60 down as if on glass 9 out of 10 times, there is still that 10th time, and I don't wan't to negate the money I save from buying gas instead of glow fuel by having to buy props. I realize I may still break props, but I feel my chances are better with a trike, and, I just like the looks better. 16" props start to get pricey. And a Chippy, just wouldn't be a chippy with a trike gear on it. Always happy to help if I can. Garry

Just test flew my new 4* 120 sat. pm., HANDS DOWN best plane Ive ever flown!
Ive taken a break from flying past 2 seasons, just learned to fly the one before that, so, I got my old instructor to take her up to see how itd do, looked great. I was too nervous to try but, he talked me into it, man, am I glad, it flew unbeleivably gracious even with me at the sticks! Rolls great, lands @ walking speed, even with fabrick, paint and somewhat over the 10-12 lb suggested flying weight.
If you can, consider the 120, no way youll be dissapointed!!!!!
ps get some wheel pants, makes a 1000% difference in looks!

Hey Flap: What did you power your 4*120 with. This is one of many planes I'm considering for the RCS 1.4 gas engine. By the way congrats on your maiden, glad to hear it went well. Always glad to help if I can. Garry

Hi Flap... I was in Discount Hobbies talking to the owner about building a 4*120 with a Saito 150 in it. He said he was going to test fly that same set-up for someone that Saturday. Would that be you? If it was how bad does the Saito 150 do on fuel?
I fly a 4*60 with a Saito 91 on it & I love it.

I am going to build a 4-Star 60 this winter, hopefully, IF I get it for Christmas. J J Freestyle lives in the same city as me only 12 miles apart so we go flying together. He has a 4-Star 60 and he clipped the wings on his one wing bay on each side. With an O.S. 91 Four Stroke strapped to the firewall, the plane will inverted flat spin, snap just beautifully, and knife-edge from here to Texas! I'd highly recommend the 4-Star 60.

On the other hand, I have built and flown the 4-Star 40. It flys AWESOME! It will glide for 20 feet (estimating) and still have enough poop to get back to the field for a full stall landing. It's beautiful. I'd say either one would be excellent for you. But I'm going into aerobatics so I'd go with the clipped wing 4-Star 60.
Clint

4* 40 all the way. Ramcharger had it right. 40 size has all the zip without the lethargic 'which way did he go, george' that most 60 size planes have. I believe the 60 size any plane is pushing the envelope of what balsa and lite ply can do in relevance to speed and handling characteristics. 40 size: not too big and not a pindot in the sky, either.

"My wife said she wants to fly with me--I think she's going for the heart attack approach"

Hello; I have a 4 star 60, and I love it. I fly mine with an old OS 90 4 stroke. I rarely go above 1/2 throttle, and enjoy the way the plane flys close to the stall. I have a big bingo too and now a Spacewalker, and a Bravo too now that I think about it. I have flown my friend 's 4 star 40 wirth a 46 in it. I thought that it didn't have the flight envelope that the 60 has, and had to be going flast all the time.