Deja Vu....

Reapr: Your question is a legitimate one. It seems that any non-balsa model is called a SPAD by some... if this is so, then my PL Products 2M Excellence and 35% Carden are a SPADs because they use foam cores... shudder the thought. What I consider a SPAD is basically what Tattoo shows on his web page. Typically a "pipe" plane with coreplast. Often the pipe is left off and the entire plane is coreplast. The planes on Tattoos web site are some of the nicest SPADs I've ever seen. Can't remember the address of Tattoo's site, but I'm sure he will chime in.

Regardless of what the plane is made of, you should use a trainer to learn how to fly.

I actually had two trainers when I started RC. A great planes PT40 kit and a Duraplane trainer. I suppose the duraplane could be considered an ancestor to a modern day SPAD. I started with the Duraplane mainly becasue it was quick. I first started RC in July and I didn't want to wait a month to finish my kit. The Duraplane flew fine... in fact I'd say it flew great... but please read on. I finished the PT40 balsa trainer in August of that yaer and flew it. It too flew great. I could tell some diffs between the two, but as far as I was concerned at the time, both flew well.... but please read on.

That was back in 1998. Today I fly 35% IMAC planes, 2M pattern ships, helis, etc. Today I CAN tell a marked diff between the Duraplane and Balsa trainer. Granted, modern day SPADs have advanced some over a 1998's era duraplane, but I have flow modern day SPADs. I have helped many learn how to fly, on everything from balsa to SPADs. In general, the SPADs, from my personal experience, seem to fall short of the performance available from planes built from other materials. A well designed SPAD may out fly a balsa plane, but it probably won't outfly a well designed balsa plane... But....

Does better aerodynamics matter for training? More specifically, is the performance diff between a typically balsa trainer and a typically coreplast trainer significant enough to warrant using one over the other for training purposes? Maybe, but it is NOT critical since SPADs have shoen they can fly well and as material technology improves, SPADS will continue to fly better. I have a hard time saying get one over the other because I learned with both a SPAD and balsa and either would work fine. However, knowing what I know now, I lean toward getting a traditional kit, becasue it teaches basic building techniques, proper plane setup, etc. In some respects I had the best of both worlds when learning to fly... I built a traditional kit but I was also in the air quick with a SPAD.

Oh for the record, I beat the snot out of my SPAD and busted it many times... of course it flew again after some duct tape repairs, etc. I NEVER broke my balsa trainer, and I flew it as much if not more than the SPAD. I think that speaks volumes about how when a pilot loses the fear factor, they become dangerous. Before I'm attacked, let me sat that there are many safe SPAD pilots and many dangerous balsa pilots. But, if you do decide on a SPAD, don't consider the planes inherent durability a open license to terrorize other pilots.

Cheers