ORIGINAL: Charlie P.
I'm kind of neutral here, but I will comment that SPADs are much more durable than balsa . . . and that is a good thing because of the way the ones I have seen fly and respond. Now, I'm sure there are highly developed SPADs that perform well. I just have only seen the ones that some poor schmoe downloaded two images and a six paragraph construction article and slapped together with salvaged parts cut from a synthetic kitchen chopping block and election signs swiped from lawns. We only had two guys in our club that futzed around with them, and the rest of us were underwhelmed. They fly, but not well. Wings generally too narrow, no lateral stability and they ground loop like horseshoes coming in. The ones that did fly better were the light profile designs: 2-D models doing 3-D stunts. If you're the type that flies on the prop they'll probably keep you happy.
A softball is durable, will fly if you push it with enough force, but it is not an aircraft. I'm not interested in maneuvers that can be duplicated by draping the wheels over a clothesline.
That is a huge problem with SPADs. Since there are few people that fly them, there is little building support. So, when someone decides to try something new, they build a SPAD and perhaps they build it poorly. When they bring it out to the field, they get all the standard remarks about how plastic is junk and will never fly well. They then give up and go back to balsa. If there were people who knew how to build SPADs or were even willing to give them a try, the same person could improve their building abilities and come out with a good flying plane.
Like
EmailBanter I fly both SPADs and balsa. I have a kit built Ultimate Bipe with a .91 4S, a kit built profile 3D plane, a kit built Seamaster, and a large 8' span gasser. I have a balsa plane for nearly every type of flying. If balsa were so vastly superior, why would I mess with SPADs at all?
- For one, SPADs are unique. I can design build and test fly a plane in a week. It takes me 2-3 months to build a balsa kit and all the hard work has already been done. I just have to assemble the pieces.
SPADs are tough and I don't have much invested in the airframe. I don't have a single balsa plane that I would even think about dragging the vertical fin through the grass at 80+ MPH. I have pics, videos, and witnesses that will tell you I do that regularly with my DPS. SPADs are fun to fly for me because I can push the envelope without worrying about failure. So what if I crash? Even if the plane doesn't survive (usually it does) I can rebuild it and be back at the field the next day.
This thread has been hijacked enough. If someone wants to start their own thread about balsa vs SPAD I'll be happy to give my opinions. If the OP really wants to learn about SPADs as a first plane, I suggest he follow the links
rcpilotcd posted.