[quote]ORIGINAL: CafeenMan
Planes built to crash do crash.[/crash]
Gotta agree with you. If a plane is built poorly, it's bound to crash - which I assume you are referring to when you mention !QUOT!planes built to crash.!QUOT! From what I've seen all types of planes, built with all types of materials, are possibles for crashing. It doesn't matter whether they are balsa, Spad, or something else.
Since this is a beginners forum I think it would seem out of place to give them the impression that crashing is rare. It happens a lot with R/C aircraft. You mentioned you learned without crashing your trainer. That's great! But, many don't. The balsa beauty they spent many hours and bucks on gets wiped out after just few flights. And then there they are ... starting all over building a new one. Or waiting weeks for the replacement ARF wing to arrive. It doesn't have to be that way.
Here's what I don't get and maybe you can explain it...
SPAD people keep telling balsa people that they're limited and rigid in their thinking because they don't see the obvious superiority of SPADS. As far as I can see, SPADs can make a trainer and a sport plane and that's about it. Seems really limited to me.
Well, I think there are limited and rigid people in both camps. And I also think arguing the issue of which is superior is a terrible waste of time. Balsa and Spad each fulfill the same basic function (flying) but each does so in a different manner with different strong points - suiting different individuals with differing values, desires, and resources. But, alas, human nature, being what it is, gets some people thinking everyone should live by
their values and desires (and they belittle those that don't have their resources). They seem to make it their life mission to convince everyone else their way is the only way - or the superior way. And your scum or a loser or possibly don't have the proper aptitude (read: loser) if you don't see things their way - or measure up to their image.
Balsa planes (in flight where they belong) can do anything a SPAD can do and far more. Not to mention the VARIETY (speaking of limitations) of planes that can be built.
You're using an impossible premise - in flight where they belong. Airplanes must always takeoff and land. And as we all know, they don't always function perfectly - so they sometimes land with partial control (maybe a hard landing) or no control (crash). This effectively nullifies your conclusion that balsa can do anything a Spad can do. It can't. Crashing, or at least a hard landing, is a reality - sooner or later. When training, probably sooner. Balsa cannot hold up like a Spad during a crash or hard landing. Spads make pretty tough combat planes, from what I've heard. Naturally armored. LOL
Where is the SPAD....
FAI Pattern Ship?
Endurance Sailplane?
Precision Scale Masterpiece?
Unlimited Pylon Racer
I haven't a clue. I'm still a bit new to Spad. As far as I know no one has tried to build them yet. Folks are probably too busy having fun in other manners.
You guys sure seem to have some kind of inferiority complex as evidenced by the constant attacks on balsa. On the other hand, we have nothing to prove and are content with what we do with having the same need to constantly attack SPADs. We simply don't care what you fly.
If you don't have the inferiority complex or care what we fly, why do you consistently attack Spads and most anyone who it seems has anything to do with them?
Spadders have taken a lot of crap from the balsa guys. Much of it was out of line. You, some of the other balsa flyers, and sadly even sometimes the mods, often go out of the way to discredit and dump on Spads and Spadders. Then you conveniently turn around and blame them for their constant attacks of Balsa as the root cause of it all. This has made some of them a bit testy and touchy. Your behavior in this thread proves my point.
Advances include composite materials, turbine engines, etc. Plastic, is not an advance... it's just an alternate building material with no aerodynamic, structural or weight advantages.
Actually, the application of an existing material for a new purpose is considered an advance. It's one of the primaries. One that science and business spend millions and millions for every year. And yes, Spads have structure advantages. And then there is the building methods, which are advances in knowledge. There are others that you will not acknowledge also.
It's good for guys who want to get into the air fast for whatever reason (lack of time, building skill, whatever...) or guys who crash a lot and think of their planes as expendable. That's all good and I have no problem with it. Why do you?
I don't have a problem with it. Yet, you obviously do - as I've seen you use this question many times before. You also have all these wonderful preconceived bad opinions about Spads and the people who build them - that you dump all over the place. Yet it appears you've never seen, built, or flown one. Well, I've at least built both balsa and Spads. Apparently you haven't. So I don't care how may balsa planes you've built. Your classification to talk about Spads is UNQUALIFIED. Do everybody around here a favor and shut up on the subject. You've become a bore.