I'm considering which should be my first gigant scale aircraft.. debating between the 1/4 Scale Spacewalker and the 1/5 scale PT-19

Any suggestions? Are they even in the same league? Both from a Kit not ARFs involved in this decision

Im not sure what a starwalker is. I'm guessing you may mean a spacewalker? If so, i'd think that it and a PT-19 would fly very similar, so it would come down to one being a warbird & the other a homebuilt aircraft. I see lots of both types at the field flying ( provided you were meaning the spacewalker) . I like both types for looks. At least with the PT-19 you can attend most warbird events & fly as well as non warbird event......Gene

Originally Posted by gene6029

Im not sure what a starwalker is. I'm guessing you may mean a spacewalker? If so, i'd think that it and a PT-19 would fly very similar, so it would come down to one being a warbird & the other a homebuilt aircraft. I see lots of both types at the field flying ( provided you were meaning the spacewalker) . I like both types for looks. At least with the PT-19 you can attend most warbird events & fly as well as non warbird event......Gene

I like both airplanes a lot. I can only have one so I think your idea that a warbird can fly on warbird events is good.

The flying will be the same that is important for me as my flying skills do not match my building skills.

I've flown both. They were similar in size and power.

I found the PT-19 difficult to take of and land, as it had severe nose over tendencies. It didn't seem to like wind. It would fly, but "flitted" around like a butterfly. It ranked high on looks, and always drew attention.

My 1/4 Spacewalker II, takes off, lands, and flies like a dream. It's not nearly as sensitive to wind.

In my opinion, the SW II is a better choice for all around performance.

What kits are you referring to ?

My SW II was a Sig kit. The kit quality was excellent, as were the plans and instructions.

My PT-19 was an ARF.I gave it away.

Kits I am looking at:

• 1/4 PT-19: http://www.hostetlersplans.com/fairchild.html
• 1/5 PT-19: http://hangtimes.com/fairchild_pt_19.html
• 1/3 Spacewalker: http://www.sigmfg.com/IndexText/SIGRC61.html
• 1/4 Spacewalker: http://www.sigmfg.com/IndexText/SIGRC59.html

Pondering points:

• I like both of these planes a lot.
• I like "big" airplanes.
• I like "War birds"
• PT-19 is significantly more costly.
• My flying skills lag behind my building skills. I hold a private pilot certificate but that doesn't help at all to fly RC.
• I have built from scratch and flown several gliders. (20 years ago)
• I have built from scratch and flown a Bill Northrop Apprentice. (20 years ago)
• I just got a new Kadet Senior EP ARF that is mainly waiting for the radio.
• Second powered plane would be the PT-19 or the Spacewalker.
• An "in between" airplane like the Four Star is has been suggested.

I own both planes with the PT-19 being the Hanger 9 1.20 size (now discontinued for many years) and the Spacewalker the Seagull 1.20, which is still available from Horizon.

Both are good fliers with the PT-19 having the edge. The PT-19 is one of the few planes I've owned that will do fantastic lumcevaks yet it is very stable in all flight modes. An area that it really shines is landings, it will almost land itself with a wonderful glide slope to solid touch down. One of the prettiest things in RC airplanes is a plane that after making the final turn, holds the same glide slope to touch down and the PT-19 excels at doing so.

It has enough dihedral and when balanced laterally, it will literally land itself given the great glide slope and roll stability.

Both of your choices have good wing areas and fit the floater category. The Spacewalker with the high aspect ratio wing requires more attention to rpms on landing to keep the wing from stalling and suffering a landing bounce, whereas the PT-19's lower aspect ratio will provide lift all the way to the ground. Maybe I failed to make that clear, the Spacewalker has a little more narrow rpm landing range between floating down the runway with too many rpms and stalling a little too abruptly with not enough.

Both planes are good lookers. The landing gear on the PT-19 is a bit gawky looking and needs raked forward some.

One big issue in this size plane is setup. My PT-19 needs a cradle for transportation and inverted one piece wing mounting. My Spacewalker doesn't and transports on its gear and has a top hatch for two piece wing, and is thus easier to haul and setup.

I've made some move toward clearing the hanger of cradle dependent planes but the one I can't part with is the Pt-19... it simply flies too well to part with. I was in hopes that the new Seagull version offered by Horizon would have been constructed similar to their AT-6 with a center section of wing with gear that could remain mounted to the plane for transportation and upright setup by simply mounting outboard sections of the wing. Had it, I would have upgraded my PT-19 to it and cleared the field dependent version from my hanger as well as gone to gas.

A good thing is that whichever you choose will be a good choice.

Interesting, as the Hangar 9 PT-19 is what I was describing. LOL Different strokes, I guess.

The 1/4 scale Sig is what I was talking about, too. The Sig model flies "heavier" than the Hangar 9 PT-19. I like the way that the weight allows you to control the decent, on landing. To me, the model flies like a low wing Cub.

I haven't built, flown, or even seen, a Hostetler PT-19. I have built Hostetler designs, though. They seem to be heavily built. This should eliminate the "butterfly" characteristics that I described above. Be ready for a challenge, though. Hostetler designs are not for the meek. They do give your brain a workout. LOL

Hi Tom... I came close early on to getting rid of the PT-19 because of the gear struts. The first broke loose within the first few flights. To my surprise, the gear block was simply glued to the sides of two balsa ribs... yep, that was it. No false ribs, rib doublers, or notched ply doublers.

Inserting paper template through the wing block slot, it was a pain to obtain a false rib pattern but it was done and false ply ribs were made to secure the gear block. A few years later, the other strut loosened and this time it was a bear to get out and again to my surprise, this side did have false ribs but they were either balsa or lite ply (I can't now recall) and had finally failed. I was prepared this time however with the pattern from previous event.

Any one needing the pattern... I've got it and 1/8 aircraft ply false ribs with notch for gear mounts will do the job nicely... I've had no further issues with the struts.

Like you, I'm surprised at the variance in appreciation for the flight quality as mine excels in flight performance. I do have a friend who had one fitted with a Ryobi gas and he didn't like his either, claiming that it was loath to come out of a spin and poorly mannered in flight. It could be that the plane simply didn't like going too high in wing loading... I'm not sure. Do you recall what engine you used?

Mine is powered by an Enya 1.20 four stroker, an engine that requires the full size equivalent of "clear prop" as it will spit em unless careful.

Tom... after my last post, I thought you might be interested in my Spacewalker story. After completion of the Seagull Spacewalker, I didn't like it. Some of that I blamed on the windy conditions it was flown in... never did get a good fly day with it.

It was horribly roll unstable not wishing to hold wings level flight and was loath to come out of a spin and finally gotten into a flat spin (very high btw) would not come out after trying everything and finally just watching it slowly spin to the ground. The fuselage was undamaged but the wings caught some tree branches and were tore up. When asked if I was going to get replacement wings, my reply was I think I'll just give the fuselage away.

Months went by and I decided new wings best be acquired while Horizon still offered them. Then this winter's project was instead of a build, to replace all fleet batteries with LiFe and upgrade to 2.4 mhz. When I came to the Spacewalker, I said what the heck, I'll give it another try. Of course, all planes got a re-balance after the changes and to my surprise, something was amiss with the Spacewalker, it was grossly nose heavy and the changes could not have been such a cause.

There was no doubt it had been balanced previous as there was 3/4 oz of lead attached to the tail wheel bracket... but it now took another 4 oz at the tail. I'm at a loss to know what was done wrong the first time balancing but admit some how I must have messed up. Re-balanced the plane flew fine, with none of the roll instability or loathness to come out of a spin. Landings were far easier.

I had a G-23 in my PT-19.

I also encountered the strut mount problems. I told Horizon about it, and they denied any knowledge. Funny that they didn't know. It was a common complaint.

I hope that the OP gets the info that he needs. I'm partial to the Sig Spacewalkers, but I'm sure that the PT-19 would be a good choice, too.

These guys are slowly getting me convinced to try their "short kit"

http://hangtimes.com/fairchild_pt_19.html

Heard good things from these guys. Small operation but a lot of "heart"

Yep... very nice. My mind quickly raced, lets see now.... add covering, struts, wheels. Dang... I wish Seagull would have built their wing three piece.

Originally Posted by ripacheco

These guys are slowly getting me convinced to try their "short kit"

http://hangtimes.com/fairchild_pt_19.html

Heard good things from these guys. Small operation but a lot of "heart"

If you will be flying off grass, angle the maingear forward about 3° to prevent the tendency to nose over.

DynaFlite included that detail in their plans & I flew mine off grass W/the gear angle thus W/O any nose over problems.

Originally Posted by SrTelemaster

If you will be flying off grass, angle the maingear forward about 3° to prevent the tendency to nose over.

DynaFlite included that detail in their plans & I flew mine off grass W/the gear angle thus W/O any nose over problems.

The hangtimes PT-19 is an awesome plane but I have been offered a DynaFlite. Price-wise the DynaFlite is more afordable.

Since this is my first scale-build and my first war-plane maybe the DynaFlite be a better option. After all I'm not going to enter a Scale Competition with my first war-bird. Specially since my flying skills are at a trainer level at this point.

Originally Posted by ripacheco

The hangtimes PT-19 is an awesome plane but I have been offered a DynaFlite. Price-wise the DynaFlite is more afordable.

Since this is my first scale-build and my first war-plane maybe the DynaFlite be a better option. After all I'm not going to enter a Scale Competition with my first war-bird. Specially since my flying skills are at a trainer level at this point.

Use the angle on the maingear that is shown for grass on the plans & reinforce the area where the wire is inserted into the wing root.

Fiberglass Specialties still has a cowl for the DF PT-19 listed. The 2-piece plastic cowl sucks.

http://www.fiberglassspecialtiesinc.com/catalog.htm

If you sheet the wings & add other scale details like wing fairings & such that bring up the weight, consider adding flaps to scrub off speed as the plane will float & be hard to flare when landing. The extra weight will result in more momentum & the airframe is so aerodynamic that it will tend to come in fast W/the added weight pushing it. When you try to flare, the plane will want to fly. Flaps will help add drag.

A Saito FA150 will fit entirely within the cowl & have plenty of power. An FA180 would be even better.