briansommers

My Feedback: (2)

hi, ive been flying for 7 yrs, howevever i havent flown in oh 2-3 yrs and i want a trainer but my field is rough (colorado rockies) i live up at 8000' msl and will need to put a 60 in a 40 size plane to fly em up this high

i want a taildragger since the field is rough, im thinking maybe a cub (kit) with some big tundra tires on it, turn it into kinda a bush plane

i have flown the hanger 9 arf cub, years ago and yowza i remember it was squirly!!

so im a little hesitant, i prefer a kit, cause im trying to save money

thanks
Brian S

TimC

I fly at 4000' and my 4 Star 60 with a .91 Saito works fine. Maybe a 100 for your alt. would work equally as well? The Four Star is not that much harder to fly than a trainer. Takeoffs are much easier with it than my Cub.

gus

Kits often cost more to build than ARFS.... Kits do not save money (significantly anyway).

gus

briansommers

My Feedback: (2)

ok, thanks, thats amazing, i thought it would be cheaper for a kit? mmmm
'

SALMONBUG

My Feedback: (1)

I suggest a 4*60 in kit or ARF version, and as previously mentioned I am tempted to say that an ARF will be cheaper to make airworthy than a kit.
for example here are some stuffs not included in most of the kits.
-weels
-covering
-glues (at least 3 diferent kind)
-a minimum of specific tools
- tank

Of course you will need the glues to complete your ARF, but you may buy it at minimum quantity and save the rest for the next airplane

rctrax

I don't think a cub is all that great as a trainer. It is a mite sqirrelly and sensetive.The regular trainers such as tower trainer, the pt's by great plains etc, are better suited for getting back into the swing of things. Also Gus is right by the time you add up all the assesorys and materials you need to complete a kit it adds up to about the same if not more. The only advantage to building a kit is it gives you more insight to how it all works and makes you better able to cope with repairs later on if the need arises. Also it gives you the oppertunity to build a better built airplane.You can use the covering and hardware of your choice rather than putting up with whatever is supplied.

EXCAP232

My Feedback: (12)

Since your field is rough I would suggest a Sig MidStar 40. You can install an Irvine 53 which would be more than adequate power at your altitude. This engine is in the 40 size case so you don't have the weight penalty. Mid wing would be safer than a low wing (easeir to catch a wingtip on the low wing). This plane is really forgiving and still quite aerobatic. Cubs (as previously noted) can be a bit squirley. This one you do need to build as it doesn't come in ARF form.

EXCAP232

bearmech

My Feedback: (1)

How about an LT25 with a .40? We have one here at 400' and it will almost hover!! Or the LT40 with a .60?

gamegeek

My Feedback: (11)

I second the LT25 or LT40. The LT40 was my first plane and kit. They are really nice kits with all the hardware you need: tires, fuel tank, etc. What's really nice is the laser cutting which makes it a really easy kit to build. I can't recommend it enough if you're really wanting to build.

The LT40 should be great with the .60. It has a huge wing for a .40 trainer.

whstlngdeath

My Feedback: (15)

You can also convert the LT-40 to a taildragger by removing the nosegear, moving the mains
just in front of the leading edge, and adding a tailwheel of your choice. Just recheck the CG.

3DFanatic

My Feedback: (5)

I second the LT 25 with a 40. (I know what you're thinking. It's a third of the LT 25. Yes, it IS a third on the LT 25 but only a second on the LT 25 with the .40 )

Anywho, my LT 25 features a .40 FP and will hover. Fun little plane.

briansommers

My Feedback: (2)

well, i did it, i bought the tower hobbies MKII 60 trainer ARF with Hitec Laser 4 and TT .61 pro BB ABC engine - i had this plane about 9 yrs ago when i re - started again, but i serioulsy looked at the LT 40 - but changed my mind at last minute

thanks for the help anyway

bearmech

My Feedback: (1)

no prob

Rumva

did midstar40 and built as tail dragger

wyomingbbq

Most definately a ultra stick... Man, what an easy plane to fly! I'm at 6600 MSL and a .46 pulls it good. Have a .61 on a 40 sized high wing and it's a screamer. The reason I suggest the ultra stick ARF is twofold: Flaps for less ear loading and short field take-offs. You can also land super slow with the down about 8 degress, much more than that and it's hard to get the thing out of the air. 2: this plane pulls skis real well, flew today in soft snow conditions. gets right off the ground and landings are sof and forgiving. same thing on wheels! Now the best for last: You can have a ball with this thing for a long time to come- not your average trainer... full acrobatic and not bad 3D flying. Just advance your setup as you see fit. These little planes will fly as gentle or as radical as you want them to depending on the control rates/throws.

I started with a high wing trainer with the 61 on it, too fast, too heavy, falls out of the sky QUICK... the stick simply flys... (and lands!) hope this helps-- Jim in Wyoming

dr_wogz

My Feedback: (3)

Look at the great planes 'Slow Poke sporty 40'

slow, docile, and pretty stable. and with a teh need of a 60 up front (with a minor tweek) you won't have to add teh dreaded extra weight this thing requires..

hoops

My Feedback: (121)

Just my two cents, but I didn't notice anyone mentioned the Goldberg Tiger Series.
I had the smaller Tiger II ARF and I truly think it tracked straighter as a tail dragger then it did in the tricycle gear setup. And, I tried it both ways.
I suspect the Tiger 60 will be as good, or better. The increase in size usually makes most designs a little more docile. Not always, but.....
I also think that in the conventional (tail dragger) setup either plane will accept slightly larger wheels to help in high grass.

And as an added bonus, the planes are designed to be lighter than some others and fly very well with the specified engines.

Now, having said all that, I did built (not arf) a Sig 4*60 as a taildragger and if flew great!

So, obviously, lots of choices.

good luck

hoops

UltraStickpilot

Get an Ultrastick! Flies mild to wild and is cheap! Cant be beat in its class.

Woodsy

If your handy as a builder and don't mind scrounging around a bit check out www.spadtothebone.com

Balsa Master

if they built them right (like you would build a kit)... maybe they would cost more. cuz heaven forbid they use some glue on em... and plastic garbage bags do not make good covering... however, they make it very ironic when you happen to crash your ARF and its covered with one... oh and lets not forget those wings... ouch... ill take a kit anyday. after you add in all the repairs to the total, its more (i havent even flown the ONE arf i own (dont ask y i have, it wasnt by choice (see sig)) and it's already broken. the temptation to pull the covering off and take some pics is overwhelming. had it been built right it would fly twice as well on half the engine and not fall apart in the process.

sorry. im venting my ARF fustrations.
-balsa-

3DFanatic

My Feedback: (5)

The only "ARF"s I own are kits built by someone else

mars

I have a LT-40(not a ARF) / TT .46pro.
Spinning a 10-6 @ 9000'. Has plenty of pull.
I built it as a tail dragger for skis and floats. Sorta looks like a cub.

mars

Oh yeah, you can buy a LT-40 either way. Kit or ARF.
The kit is a jig-saw puzzle that snaps together.

trroscoe

My Feedback: (39)

Brian I have the same tower trainer MK60II that you got and mine has a TT 61 Pro on it also. This is a great flying trainer and engine combo. The engine will have more than enough power to fly your plane where you live. I fly at 2800 ft and I rarely use more than half throttle on it. You will like your plane and engine. have fun.

Rick

skorman

My Feedback: (3)

Tail dragger trainer? Has to be an Ultra Stick. Very easy to maneuver on the ground and in the air.