Good First Kit?

You really can't go wrong with anything from Great Planes or Sig. Something like a Mid Star from Sig would be a great first kit.

suggestions,

A Tower Hobbies Fun 51 would be an easy and inexpensive way to try kit building. And it's a FUN airplane!

Good flying, desmobob

Ditto Great Planes and Sig.

You can do it. Just follow the instructions and come here and ask questions when you get stuck. If I can build a flyable model (and I can), then anyone can.

Ed Cregger

"Paul McIntosh" wrote in news:f_m4f.55629$WR2.7662@fed1read03:

I'll agree with the general recommendation for GP or Sig kits. And I wanted to particularly second the Mid Star recommendation. It seems to be often-forgotten, but it's one of my favorite planes of all time. I built mine without the turtle deck to save a few oz, tail-dragger LG (same reason), built the wing flat (no dihedral - easier to build!), and I put too much engine on it (OS .46FX). It wasn't very pretty, and it wasn't an all-out aerobatic plane, but it would put on a pretty good show and it didn't have any bad habits - just a responsive, honest, overpowered airplane with a nice light wing loading.

I think the 4-Stars have the same wing and same general layout. They probably fly about the same as the Mid-Star, and look a little better, but there are a lot of 4-Stars at my field, and I always like to have something different.

Did you have a size in mind (i.e. .15, .46, .61, etc)?

Thank you to Paul, Ed, Mark, Storm's, Robert, and Mike for all of the quick suggestions and feedback here!

I mentioned the Tiger Stick and Tiger 2 to give you an idea what I'm flying now. The Falcon kit would be a fun build but a step backward in aircraft. Interestingly enough, the Mid Star was at the top of my list for kits I was interested in. I also thought the SIG Kavalier might be a fun plane to fly.

I've been sticking with .40 sized aircraft because I drive a 4-cylinder sedan. Stepping up to a larger aircraft won't be practical unless I trade in my Hyundai Elantra, which fits two .40 sized planes just fine with the rear seats folded down.

Thanks for confirming I'm on the right track with the MidStar and/or Kavalier.

My choice is a bit easier since I now know that the Kavalier has been discontinued. I think the Four Star would be a lot like the Tiger 2, but the Mid Star would be a little bit different and it would be something you don't see too often.

suggestions,

Things are changing rapidly in the hobby industry. If there is something of older design that you want, you had better snatch one up while you can.

I heard (read) that Enya four-strokes will no longer be imported into the US by their traditional importer. I then began a web search for Enya four-strokes that I intended to buy and rebuy. I found a 53-4C, a fine engine, at Sheldon's Hobby and ordered it. I still want to buy a NIB 80-4C and the small block 120-4C, not the 120R. Nothing wrong with the latter, by the way, but I already have one.

Ed Cregger

Where did you hear about the Kavalier being discontinued?? I hope it hasn't, and I still see it on Sig's web site

PRose

There aren't anymore new kits any more, are there (40-60 sized)?

I'm just getting back into the hobby -- seems like just in time to see it all disappear. I've just finished buying the kits I planned on building this winter and now it looks like I've got to get every kit I'll be interested in building ever, and if RCM plans goes TU, I'll have to buy every plan for every plane I plan on scratch-building.

Also, the club I'll be joining is in the process of losing their flying field.

Argh!

PRose

With the design software that is available today, the real builder will be hard pressed to find a reason to buy a kit soon. Sharing files via the internet, utilizing local print shops to reproduce plans to the appropriate scale, etc., will eliminate much of the need to purchase kits, except for reasons of nostalgia. How long will it be until Tower offers us a parts cutting device similar to a printer, but with a laser cutter instead? We will probably inherit such a device that was generated for a much larger hobby base than our own. I wouldn't complain about its origins, as long as the price and quality was right.

The current trend in ARF and RTF won't last all that long. No, I don't think they will disappear completely, but I do suspect that their popularity will diminish greatly over time. I've been wrong before. But I don't think that I am wrong about this.

There will always be a diehard core of builders. Whether they will exist in sufficient quantities to warrant keeping flying fields is another matter. We shall see.

Ed Cregger

Ed Cregger wrote: > There will always be a diehard core of builders. Whether they will exist in

And in that assessment, you have just made a strong argument for ARFs. Remember, please, that one once had to be a mechanic with a strong arm in order to drive an automobile.

I understand your point.

I am not against ARFs. I have a basement full of them, as well as built up models. Some scratch built, some from kits.

I am not against those that fly ARFs and RTFs. We all need each other today. Let's find the things that we have in common and emphasize them. But don't get offended when we folks that like to glue sticks together talk amongst ourselves once in a while. Whatcha wanna talk about, St. John?

Ed Cregger

I glue sticks together. After I draw them on my computer and have them cut with a beam of coherent light!

I was reading user reviews of the Kavalier at RC Universe and several folks who rated the kit noted they were disappointed that it had been discontinued. I hadn't been able to find any Kavalier kits for sale at my local hobby stores or usual online sources, either.

I'd originally found the Kavalier by looking at all of the kits listed on SIGs website as SIG and Great Planes were singled out as great kits to start out with.

That is sad as the Kavalier is a very nice looking plane as well as a great flyer.

How to get more kids in the hobby.