i am learning on a 3 ch kadet seniorita and wanted to start another kit for my second airplane... which would be the best overall plane for transition from high to low wing, aerobatic capabilites (nothing too fancy intended) and ease of build/quick build.
also feel free to sate your reasons for choosing your pic or if there is a plane missing from the list.

Hi Andrew - the 4*60 just happened to be my first kit build after starting to learn on a ARF LT-40.

Easy build and laser cut.

I like the larger size compared to the 40.

Easy to kit bash if you'd like. LOTS of building threads on the 4*60

If you click on my profile and follow the link to my RC site, I have a pretty good building thread with text on the 4* I did.

Good Luck and Good Flying

My number two plane was a Sig Midstar. Its a greatly under rated
plane and almost a perfect 2nd plane.

Its easy to build. Its stable enough so you cant get
yourself into serious trouble too easily. Its aerobatic
enough to do all the basic maneuvers.

Its rugged enough to handle the rough treatment a
number two plane is going to get. And it has no bad habits.

This is the plane I really LEARNED to fly with. And I still
have it and still fly it occasionally.

Mike Hammer

I voted Four Star 60. The 40 or 60 are equally good but I like 60 size planes better. Four Stars have a great reputation as second planes.
The Super Sportster 60 has been discontinued, not sure about the 40.
The Goldberg Tigers are supposed to be similar to the four stars as far as building and flying but I like the looks of the Four Star better

Sig Midstar, or GP easy Sport

If you're flying a 3 channel trainer now, I wouldn't jump up too fast. So either one of these planes would be excellent.

thanx for the input. now as far as choices i think ive got it narrowed down to two planes: midstar or fourstar 60...

Well let me tell you about Midstar vs 4 Star. They are both great planes
and you will probably be happy with either. The Midstar and 4 Star 40
were both designed by the same guy. (Bruce Tharpe) And they both
share the same wing. The Midstar has wing tips and the 4 Star does not.

The 4 Star flies a little faster and has a slightly better roll rate.

The 4 Star tends to bounce on landings and the Midstar does not.
The 4 Star likes to float forever on landing approaches. As a result
a lot of people clip the wings. It still floats. The Midstar does not
float nearly as much.

And the 4 Star tends to pull toward the belly with rudder application
while the Midstar does not.

The Midstar is a shoulder wing and the 4 Star is low wing.

When I started seriously flying my Midstar another new guy at
our field came out with a 4 Star 40 for his 2nd plane. Our skill
levels were pretty much equal. Our two planes flew quite similar
but he got quite frustrated with landings. I would make one 3 point
landing after another and his 4 Star would bounce down the field.
He eventually clipped the wings on his 4 star and it helped but
it never did land quite as nicely as my Midstar.

You can build the Midstar as either a trike or as a tail dragger.
Do it as a tail dragger. I can still impress the crowd with that
plane and perfect full stall 3 point landings as light as a feather.

Either plane will serve you well...

Mike Hammer

ok i think that last post is leaning me towards the midstar. but i was wondering if you know of any good build stories for this plane? i was also looking at building a hawker hurricane or typhoon as a scale plane after i learn low wing planes and higher speeds and some basic loops, rolls, ect. is the midstar going to help me, or is it not advanced enough to make the "switch" between the two models.

The Midstar will do all the basic aerobatics. Loops, rolls, spins and
my favorite...cuban 8s. But...

The jump to warbirds is a big jump. Even for pilots with several
years experience. Its not the speed or the aerobatics its the
wing loading and the resulting sometimes unpredictable stall
characteristics of a lot of warbirds. Nothing will ruin your
day faster than getting a nice warbird too slow on approach
and watching it snap right into the dirt.

By all means build em if you want em. But wait a while
on flying them.

The Midstar is easy to build. Excellent instructions.
Build it stock except for the tail wheel. Get a Sullivan
tailwheel bracket. And going to dual aileron servos
mounted in the wing is worthwhile. Other than that
build her stock.

Mike Hammer

I have a 4*40 kit but haven't begun building it yet.

I would vote for the Sig Kavalier or Sig Somethin Extra. The Kavalier is a shoulder wing trike with very good habits. It tracks straight and does just about all of the pattern maneuvers. It has no bad habits. The Kav was my first kit and 3rd plane and I still love flying it. It is just a quality design. I'm not sure about knife edge with it. I just thought about it and I don't think I've tried it on the Kav.

I mentioned the SE because it is an excellent second plane if you keep the rates very low. It is docile, fun, and a great plane to land. It also will fly a lot of the pattern stuff, but maybe not as well as the Kavalier. Some may argue this. You can turn up the rates on the SE as you grow into it. The SE is a very underated kit, and very flexible one as well.

my first built, and all around any condition flyier is the slow poke sport 40. i am currently building one, and about to cover it! [link=http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_3823492/anchors_3823492/mpage_1/key_/anchor/tm.htm#3823492]here is my progress![/link] hands down awesome second plane. and as soon as i get it done, i plan to teach my girlfriend to fly on it.

happy choices and good landings!
ron

Hello; I, too recommend the Sig mid-star 40. I have built 3 of them and wish I had one now. I have a Sig 4 star 60, and love that plane too, but I still think the mid star 40 is a better all-around plane for a beginner/intermediate.

I had a Slo-poke 25, and it was an evil plane to properly control, if the slo-poke 40 is like the 25, I wouldn't suggest it. I noticed that the one guy who did recommend it, hadn't flown his yet.

There is so much talk about expense, my attitude is that if you can't afford it, then save up until you can, don't try to cut corners or you will be dissappointed. Also, one little crash and it's all over, and your just mad. I tried to make do with cheap engines when I began, they just added to the frustration, and made the learning process one step more difficult. Nobody flys model airplanes to save money.

I had a Kavalier too, still have it, in fact. Another great second plane, but quite a bit more difficult to build then the mid-star 40. Sig kits are great. Another fellow at our field has a Tiger 60, which flies great for a second plane. I have built most of the glodberg line and like them a lot, but I don't care for the Tiger since they are awkward to carry with the canopy right over the c of g. Then there's the Goldberg Protoge, another great second plane.

andrew66,

I was at the same point you are a couple years back. At that time, like now, the majority vote was for the Four Star .60. I did consider it but the one trait that really stuck out that I didn't like about the 4* is the tendancy to drop its nose on rudder application. This is the same trait which gives the 4* rather poor knife edge performance. Of the choices you listed I voted for the Sportster because it is probably the cleanest flyer of the ones you listed.

The plane I settled on is the Bruce Tharpe Venture .60. He is the same guy who designed the Sig Mid-Star, Four Star .40 and the Four Star 1.20. The Venture was Bruce's first plane that he put out for his own company after leaving Sig. Consider it a Four Star with all the bad traits removed.

Check out the following link if it sounds interesting.

http://www.btemodels.com

FlyerBry

All the 4*'s fly really great.

As far as the size 40 or 60 I guess it will all depend
on how much you are willing to spend on a motor at this
time and how big a airplane you can transport.

Either way you won't go wrong.

Regards
Roby

I built a 4*60 kit for a second plane. This is a kit I'd say most anyone can build with little effort. Being mechanically inclined I made a couple minor adjustments- installed larger fuel tank than recommended (increased flight time) and fabbed a fuel hatch so I could get to the fuel tank to work on it-should I ever have to. Installed a tower hobbies .75 2-stroke engine. Upon take off only 3 clicks of trim was needed on aileron and 3 on elevator. Futaba 6EXA radio 70 & 120 % rates for ailerons and elevator 140% on rudder. Expos at -30 for aileron and elevator. This plane flies like it's on rails. No sluggish response, no unwanted suprises. The plane flies great and does what you tell it to do when you tell it to do it.

I don't know about the Mid* as I've never built one.

Just my two cents worth on the 4*