LMProd

How would a SIG Rascal 40 compare with the SIG 4 Star 60 ARF or the Great planes Space walker. I want to use the plane as transition from a lot of time on a trainer and some time on a Piper cub. From reading previous modelers opinions all three are very good planes. Easy to fly, see and forgiving with basic aerobatics capabilities.

I am leaning to the Rascal 40 but my wife like the way the Space Walker looks.

HMMMMMM ? Which way to go ?????? Or BOTH or ALL Three !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

whstlngdeath

My Feedback: (15)

There is only one......logical........scientific..........object ive way
of solving your dilemma. It is the way that practical, conscientious
and thoughtful gentlemen resolve this age-old problem:

GET ALL THREE! BUILD 'EM ALL AND FLY 'EM AND THEN SORT
THEM OUT!!!! YEEEEEEEEHAAAAAAAAAA!!!

JNorton

My Feedback: (2)

I've had the 4 Star 60 and currently have the Rascal 40. The 4 Star is the better aerobatic plane. However the Rascal is no slouch either. It is a lot of fun to fly and will even knife edge! If I could have only one it would be the 4 Star. However, I have to agree with Whstlngdeath's opinion to get all three, not a bad flying plane in the bunch!

bgi

My Feedback: (7)

Watching a Rascal 40 hover is a sight to see. It just looks WRONG! I love the looks of the Rascal.

Mike Wiz

My Feedback: (2)

Personally, if I wanted to move up to an aerobatic capable ARF from a trainer I'd pick the Hobbico Avistar. It looks like a primary trainer, but it's much more capable than that. I stuck an O.S. .70 Surpass in mine and had all the attributes of the Rascal 40 with the addition of a good roll rate and the ability to spin.

Wiz

pequeajim

My Feedback: (1)

It's really a matter of what you like in looks with those three planes. They are all mildly aerobatic, however the 4 * 60 is the most aerobatic of the bunch and will track the best. I'm partial to the Spacewalker, but that's only because I agree with your wife, I like the looks.

The GP Spacewalker is a nice flying plane and will fly with a variety of engines. However, if I had to choose a second plane for myself of the three, I would go with the 4 * as it will do the most and track the best.

BUT! You have to please the honey to ya know!

I am currently getting ready to put the Kyosho version together for my daughter, Magnum .61 4 stroke, lady pilot.

Great second plane for her after she's off the trainer.

rc-sport

My Feedback: (12)

I have to disagree with peq. I had the four* and now I fly the Rascal. The Rascal is alot more fun to fly, the only advantage the four* has is its roll rate. The Rascal has a very long tail moment like a pattern ship so it tracks really well. It's rudder is very powerful, I can knife edge all day long. The four * had a tendency to float to much, the Rascal is a breeze to land but comes down when you want it to. I have a Saito 56 running on 30% nitro and you should see that sucker hover.The Rascal also can really whip when you want with those elliptical wings. Forget the Spacewalker for aerobatics, it flies like an ole lady, graceful and slow. IMO go with the Rascal, it looks better to.

pequeajim

My Feedback: (1)

Good point rc_sport. I had heard that the roll rate of the Rascal was good. You are right that the 4 * will float more than the Rascal and the SW more than the 4 *.

Hey, I like the looks of the Rascal too.

Either way, they are a good flying plane and any of them would fun to fly.

LMProd

Thanks for all the great responces.

I think the problem rest with there isn't a bad plane in the bunch.

I should just pick one for now and plan on purchasing the others in the near future.

Gary