Everyone seems to have a favorite trainer. There are pages and pages of posts on someones favorite trainer. Personally, I have not found a plane that wasn't stamped trainer that didn't fly fairly well(ARF or build-up). So, what's the worst trainer? I would like to know what to look out for .

Why waste time worrying about it?just buy one of the good ones,and the market will take care of the junk.

Bolar,
I think you should find a good kit,
from say SIG or ? and get some balsa dust
up your nose and everywhere else.
Glue your fingers all to hell and really
feel the plane man. Think of all the
neat stuff you could learn in the process.
Buy a kit and build it from the inside out
than the outside in. Get an instructor and
solo that baby. It's what I did years ago
and I have many fond memories. You have
plenty of time to worry about all the other stuff later.
People can make pizza boxes fly for pete's sake.
If you don't have time to build than oh well.
There are plenty of good arfs as you mentioned.
Pick one out..assemble it and good luck guy!
I guess my pick for the worst trainer or first plane
would have to be a a a ah a MUD DUCK! :bananahea

Peace, :spinnyeye
Chris

Worst? Mud Duck? Why?

Or are you actually talking about the Giant Mud Duck and its foam-board siblings? I thought the original 56" balsa Duck is a great little plane -- maybe not the best trainer, but way better than some of the flitty heavy little small trainers I've seen.

I don't have one specific worst in mind, but I've never seen a 1/2A "trainer" that was as good a trainer as any of the larger trainer planes. In fact, other than sailplane-like designs (tutor, twilighter, etc.) I've never seen ANY 1/2A that I'd use as a trainer, whether it's labeled "trainer" or not. It takes more than a high mounted wing to make a good trainer.

the duraplane has to be the worst rc invention of the 20th century!!!!

The worst trainer is an aircraft which was never intended to be a trainer, but the newbie has insisted its going to be their first airplane (aka a scale P51 or similar). Yes, I've seen it happen and it is ugly.

At our club field we are encouraging the new guys to purchase the Aircore 40. It's horribly ugly, but will rebound from a crash better than eny other trainer I've seen. It's about as stable as any other trainer I've seen. It definitely needs an O.S. 46FX or equivilant for power. Bought one for my son. Hope to finish it soon.

The worse trainer is a 40% cap on high rates.
I don't know of any beginner or even someone with some time under there belt who is able to fly that monster!

There may be worse ones that purport to be trainers, but the Duraplane is at the bottom of my barrel. It's got way too much wing loading to fly slow and smooth for a beginner. I know... it's built to crash... and a good thing too, considering. That feature nearly always gets used. I've always been surprised they fly as well as they do, which is not very, considering the weight.

Here is another vote for the DURAPLANE. This is the world,s worst trainer that is marketed as such!

My first plane was a Tower trainer and I cannot say how good or bad a trainer it was. When it crashed shortly into its first flight, it spread balsa over a big area.

With a few mods its not hard to reduce the weight of a Duraplane by a 1/4 lb. and besides, a slightly higher wing loading makes them less affected by gusts. I replaced the aluminum section of the fusalage with a box section of pine (I did this to eliminate radio interference, but it was lighter as well). I also replaced the supplied engine mount with 1" maple and a Sullivan engine mount (also lighter). At 5.25 lbs. it flies great and when I do land hard (crash) it can usually be fixed at the field or at home that evening and be flying the next day. I think most folks hate this plane because it's ugly, but when it's windy their planes are on the ground or at home.

TonyD

When you graduate on to a better airplane, then you will know the difference in the Duraplane and one that flies so much better. Until then, if the Duraplane 'floats your boat', be happy with it and enjoy it.

Whether or not a pilot flies his plane on windy days is a matter of their personal preference or their ability to fly on windy days and has little or nothing to do with the ability of the aircraft to be flown in the wind. It is pretty windy outside now but I am headed to the flying field to fly my Corsair as soon as this is posted.

aptar,
In fact, I also fly a Topflite Cessna and an Ultra Stick. At the field I fly at, I'm not alone when I decide not to risk planes I have more time and/or money in. But my point was, while some trainers fly better, if one crash sidelines a newbie until he can put all the splinters back together or buy another plane, how does that make them better trainers? Even when there's great flying conditions, I always have a little anxiety when it's a plane I worked on all winter. IMO the Duraplane is a good trainer because its survivability removes some of that anxiety and lets a new pilot concentrate on flying instead of not crashing.

The worst trainer is one that will restrict your flying and learning skills after about the fourth or fifth flight.
The mfg make all of these flat bottom wings and the only thing they are good for is the first few flights. The best trainer is a good flight simulator program on your computer. A flight simulator will save you on the average about three airplanes the first year that you fly RC airplanes. And if this is true the flight simulator is free isn't it. I would like to hear some others comment on this comment.
If you want to see a what is a good trainer is, go to the thread about the Tower Kaos 40 and read. The good trainer is not the Kaos 40.
Lee

THE WORST TRAINER...is a Hangar9 Pizzazz on a OS 61 FX

Sig Kougar with an Irvine carbed MDS48 and 1 inch of control throw on all surfaces.

not a great trainer.. but ..HOOooooooo what a blast. lol

Diamond Dust, yes it actually say's "flies like a trainer" on the box.

I bought a Dura-plane when they first came out. I don't know how much different they are now to the one I got. It was a fast plane and would glide like a brick in an engine out situation. I had fun with it after I learned how to fly.

The only other trainers I have had problems with were the Aircore-Trainers. Beginners seem to have a problem building the wing straight.

Taught my brother how to fly on a durastik....There are better flying trainers, BUT It took quite a beating....He doesn't know or care to repair airplanes.....so any repairs after crashes were mainly done by me with him looking on. This plane took a beating with almost ZERO maintence or repair. Usually we just had to replace a needle valve assembly on the FP 40 when he would bury the engine in the ground. It was the perfect plane for him. He now flies an durabat and loves it.....to each his own I guess
Brian

In 1983 I tought a good friend how to fly from scratch on a Byron F-16 ducted fan with a Rossi .81 engine-I would just take it off and get it up to 500ft and it only took him 20 10min.flights and he could fly by himself real good-in 1 week he could take off and land-really well.So I would say some Jets are better trainers than others-but the Byron F-16 is a good jet trainer.



Jackjet

I think the duraplane IS durable.... but it needs about two feet MORE wing to fly like a trainer, rather than a brick!!

I had one guy that would not listen. He insisted on and actually got a Royal P-38 kit. Paid a fortune for it and it was the worst building job I have ever seen. He never finished it. sanded through the sheeting many times trying to make is smooth. He destroyed it. What a mess.

I flew the duraplane without any instruction, I dont think its all that bad. I enjoy it more now. It s not the worst trainer. That vote goes to the RCM trainer. Weve got a couple of them that were put together awful and and floated toooo much.

Every airplane obviously flies good enough for someone to have deemed them marketable, so I think that there is as many "worst" trainers as there are pilots. It's what you want out of this hobby that maks one trainer a "best" and another a "worst" trainer. If you hate building, don't have a lot of time, and take chances trying to learn quickly or go it on your own and would probably quit over a destructive whipe-out...an LT-40 kit would be a "worst" trainer for you. If you are a craftsman, enjoy building, are not impatient, have a good dedicated instructor, don't take chances and can't stand ugly airplanes...a DuraPlane may be your "worst" trainer.

I think that naming a "worst" trainer is either impossible or must be looked at on a pilot by pilot viewpoint. The absolute bottom line is that the "best" trainer for you is one that will keep you in the hobby and motovate you on to your next airplane...and your "worst" trainer is one that will give you a bad experience and make you find another hobby.

Along these lines, in my first year in the hobby I destroyed a SIG Colt, a Balsa USA Swizzle stick, A SIG Cadet, and then a Goldberg Falcon 56. I was in school 40 hours a week and was working full time. I was a "fair" pilot who didn't go to the field to fly the pattern all day...I wanted to get radical and have fun. I got a hold of something called a Lanier Comet. Took one afternoon to put it together...it was ugly, heavy, and flew like crap...but that plane got me to the field, and I put it through hell and it took the abuse. I went from hating a hobby that involved too may hours of building...to really having a ball with something that got me in the air dispite my lack of time and finances. At that time...a plane that many laughed at and called the worst thing to ever happen to the hobby...was actually the "best" plane for me at the time. Had it not been for that flying turd, I may be a golfer or something now

The armadillo combat 40 is definitly the worst trainer, that thing flew like a pair of pliers. I remember landing at 3/4 throttle because any less and it fell out of the sky lol.

The worst trainer is the one that doesn't have an instructor with it.