auto5man

Hi All,

This is my first post and I am very new to this hobby...in fact, I'm still in the information gathering phase! (sole flying experience so far is with the Firebird Commander electric from HobbyZone) Trying to figure out which trainer to buy. I'm sort of anxious to get going and for that reason am looking at RTF's...the hangar 9 alpha appeals to me both because good things have been said about it and also because I can get it for about 277.00 tax included.

I'm also interested in the Balsa USA Stick Forty Plus though, and I'm curious why it doesn't get mentioned much. I've done searches on most of the other trainers and there are posts galore and reviews about almost every one but very little turns up when I do a search on the Stick Forty. Gosh, I know its one ugly plane...but what good is a great looking plane when crashes seem to be inevitable with trainers and beginning fliers? From everything I've read it seems like a very easy to build kit and a very TOUGH plane to destroy. I'd appreciate anyone who has experience building and/or flying this plane to chime in and give up some info! (flying characteristics, which radio is best, which engine is best etc.)

Thanks for any and all replies.

auto5man

sandal

Hi auto5man,

I had a Balsa Usa Stick 40 (the one without ailerons) a few years ago, and I have a Stick 40+ (with ailerons) on my building table right now.

Building:
I had an "accident" with my first Stick. The wing broke in half just outside the fuselage during a loop. People have suggested to add shear webs (glue balsa sheets with vertical grain to the back of the spars connecting them) as this will make the wing MUCH stronger. I'm going to do it.

There are no "inter-locking" parts on the Stick. You have to line the parts up over the drawing and glue them together. If you buy a Great Planes PT-40 or similar, parts will fit into each other making it very easy to build everything straight. In my opinion, this is not a problem because the Stick's construction is very simple and straight forward.

Parts are included to build the Stick with a tailwheel or a nosewheel. Most people seem to recommend nosewheel for your first plane. "I have heard" that the nose gear is easy to break on the Stick, but I don't know if this is true. I built mine with a tailwheel, and it is the easiest tailwheel plane to take off that I have flown. During most takeoffs the only thing I had to do was to apply throttle. The plane would track straight and lift off by itself. (but most trainer planes can do this)

Flying:
The Stick flies slowly and gently like a "normal" trainer. It can roll, loop, spin, fly inverted and the other basic aerobatic maneuvers, but it doesn't happen fast, and it doesn't look like a pattern plane. At low speed things happen slowly.

Engine:
The Stick can use a lot of different engines. The recommended range is .30 to .45 2-stroke. A bushing .40 like the OS 40LA or TT GP-42 would probably be a "perfect" match, and a not-too-expensive engine. I have flown mine with as little as a 25LA, and it worked well, BUT you have to plan every move when you fly with "too small" engines. If it's your first glow powered plane I suggest a .40 2-stroke. Some people choose to buy a .46 ball bearing engine for their first trainer and use the same engine with their next plane, but I'm not sure that I'd put a .46BB on the Stick (too much power?)

My personal opinion is that most (all?) the trainers that are sold today will get you in the air. If you buy a plane from SIG, Balsa USA, Great Planes etc. you WILL get a good trainer. They are slightly different, and you get what you buy. If you want a feather-light balsa trainer, go for the SIG LT-25. If you want a tank, buy a Stick 40. The GP PT series is somewhere between these two. And there are a lot of other good planes.

Hope this explains more than it confuses.

Tattoo

I went from a soled rookie to a pretty good flyer on one of these in the late 70's (they were called Swizzle sticks back then). I think the reason you don't hear more about them is the reason you already mentioned...in this day of style and appearance..they are ugly, but get the job done very well. One very positive thing about them is their simplicity, while at the same time teaching the basics of building. You have the plans, and the plane is so simple, that rebuilding/repairing, or even scratch building your next one is a piece of cake. They fly every bit as good as any Trainer on the market.

RedWing

My Feedback: (4)

I agree with Sandal and Tattoo.
I learned on this plane.
Sturdy, simple, and a good flyer.
I started out with a OS 40 LA (not a fan of that engine). Soon put a Tower 46, ok but also had problems with leaks.
A good 40 or any 46 (Thunder Tiger pro 46, good BB engine and good price) will be more than enough.
I used cheap 4 channel Hitec with cheap standard servos, like the 311's. This setup worked great.
Now, if you go this route with the cheaper radio gear, you may need to replace it with a computer radio not to long down the road. Just keep that in mind. I soon got myself a Hitec Flash 5x radio. This gave me the ability to put 5 planes on one radio and to add expo and end point adjustments etc at a reasonable cost.
The nose wheel on mine has been fixed several times. It's a weak area in the design.
Also, I have heard of the wings snapping, but no first hand experience with that.

I still have it and my son (8 yrs old) is going to fly it this summer. Wish him luck!

Bill

auto5man

Redwing, Tatto, and Sandal,

Thanks for the replies...this is EXACTLY the sort of info I wanted to hear. My brother and another buddy are sort of all getting interested in flying at the same time and may pool our monies and efforts on a trainer. After seeing how they fly the electrics (Firebird Electrics) I wonder if this is such a good idea. They seem to RELISH a good crash and being the "fix-it" guy of the bunch, I've replaced countless tail assemblies and wings, etc. I've gotten proficient at keeping their planes in the air. At first I had grand ideas about building a kit ( I like to build things) but then I read posts about people discussing being afraid to fly your creation and getting emotionally attached to your trainer in that way (I can see myself being that way) so that's what attracted me to the Stick Forty Plus. A little too ugly to get attached to. A simple, no-nonsense, get the job done trainer is what I'm looking for. Also the fact that it sounds easy to build for a kit plane and TOUGH. I'm glad to hear that it flys decent as well.

Sandal, as far as those construction details. I have built one of those Guillow rubber band powered planes before where you lay all the parts out on the drawing and glue and pin them right on the plan...is the construction method similar to that? Also sounds like I would need to strengthen the construction of the wing as I heard this problem (wing breakage) mentioned before.

Thanks all again for the information...this is a GREAT website.

auto5man

RVator

My Feedback: (1)

I learned to fly with a Stick 40. I used a Hitec laser 4 radio and an OS 46LA. Mine is a taildragger and I cut the trailing edge of the wing back and added strip ailerons. I also wrapped the wing center section in fiberglass cloth to give it strength. The LA has plent of power and it flys nice. The good part of kit building your trainer is you will have the plans, tools, and parts to repair it when the time comes. I flew mine on skis back in Jan. That was fun. Maybe put floats on it this summer.

sandal

The plans are full scale, and the fuselage and wing are built on the plans. It might be slightly easier to build than a Guillow's because there are fewer (and larger) parts. Most of the fuselage is made of plywood.

Tattoo

auto5man, You might be interested in http://www.spadtothebone.com although the materials they use are different, the simplicity involved was inspired by the fact that one of the instigators of the site learned on, and loved the old Swizzle sticks. In fact the [link=http://www.spadtothebone.com/misc/originalspad.jpg]First ever Spad wing[/link] took it's measuremens directly from one.

RedWing

My Feedback: (4)

I knew that SPAD looked familiar.
BTW, SPAD's are great.

Bill

Here is my Stick 40 Plus

Mike in DC

I don't want to be too harsh, but a few clicks of the mouse reveal the obvious reasons. The plane was designed in 1977. One would hope that the designer and the entire industry could come up with something a little better in 25 years. A [link=http://webpages.charter.net/rcfu/KitReviews/BUSAStick40.html]reviewer [/link] indicates that that the wing broke in two, but he still recommends the plane [sm=confused.gif]. Most pilots today expect wings to be very strong. Lastly, the Balsa USA web site itself leaves a lot to be desired. In this day and age, not many people are going to buy when the web site gives you nothing more than a postage stamp size picture, and about a three sentence description. Compare that with Great Planes, where you can download the entire assembly manual.

auto5man

RVator and Redwing...I love what you did with your Stick Forties, they both look GREAT!

Tattoo, as a matter of fact, I had stumbled across the SPAD sites in all my searches and was very interested in the site. It's a site I will probably come back to in the future. For my first kit build I think I will need more detailed plans just to learn the standard hardware setups for connecting servos to flaps, rudders, etc. I just don't know how to do that stuff yet. I looked at those types of parts in the hobby store and their seems to be MILLIONS of different little tiny parts. That first SPAD does look like the STICK FORTY and also bears a strong resemblence to the DURATRAINER (which I decided not to build for my first plane because the reviews were less than favorable for a beginner plane. Heavy plane, needs to fly fast for stability and land fast, etc., i.e....bad for beginners)

Mike in DC...I hear what you are saying about the website and lack of information out there on the plane. I still find myself attracted to the kit though for lots of reasons as a trainer.

Again, I appreciate everyone's comments...

auto5man

sandal

The Stick 40's instruction manual is simple and not fancy-looking at all, but it gives you the information needed to build the plane. It can't compete with GP manuals when it comes to explaining things and lay-out/graph. quality, but is that necessary when we have RCU and other forums?

It is true that the reviewer recommends the Stick even though the wing broke off in flight. He suggests replacing some of the wood in the kit. To me, this means that he thinks the plane is VERY good, and that he thinks it is too good not to be bought just because of a few too soft parts. The wing will indeed be strong if shear webs are added or the spars are replaced with harder wood.

I agree that the website isn't the fanciest one... Shouldn't keep people from buying their kits when they know what they get though...

Mike in DC ... where did you find those 4 inch stamps?

Grampaw

Some of you guys posting have shown some good looking Sticks. If I ever get this danged photo scanning thingie figured out I may get mine on. Mine originally belonged to my son-in-law. Got it for him to start in RC with. I later got it back when they moved north. I recovered the wing and repainted the woodwork. We lengthened the wings one rib bay when he built. It climbs like all get out. When I got it back I added drooped wing tips and they added not only more stability, but gives it a classy look. Its still very manueverable. Never had any problems with the wings. Mine is a tail dragger. Don't care for trikes. I have a .40 on it, and fly it in winds that ground the big gassies at the strip. I think mine will be 15 years old this Christmas, and it still gets flown fairly regularly too. It may not be the most beautiful plane at the strip, but one Sunday a few of us each took a plane to a neighboring city's club to fly with them. My lowly Stick Forty got a lot of second glances as guys saw those drooped wing tips, and every body turned to watch it putt-putting down the runway on a low slow speed pass, stable and solid as if on rails. Lands like it invented it too! Oh yes, I like it.

RobStagis

World's best trainer!!! *grin* Build it with a tailwheel - the nosegear is a little troublesome. Glass the wing center section, no matrter what the instructions say!!! Period!! No dissenting opinions allowed!!!

I had 2 of these, and they were my favorite knockabout planes - I'd be flying when everybody else was broken, scared of the weather, whatever. Had one on floats and skis, too! Went through 3 paintjobs and 2 replacement wing coverings on the last one..."Hey!! This servo is fluky...I'll fly anyway!" *grin*

Build according to the plans, but with a tailwheel and glassed wing. Replace the flex-o-matic pushrods to the tail with Dave Brown fiberglass rods - it's easy to do - it's a straight shot out of the back of the 'cabin' to the tail, and you'll never crash due to a worn pushrod end (experience speaking)...for a stupid added detail, paint a spiral on the exposed pushrods so everybody can see your control rods moving.......

RobStagis

Noticed one flight that the plane was 'sloppy' in the air...brought it in and the tail surfaces were being held to the plane by nothing but the control rods and air pressure!!!!! Little 5-minute epoxy and a soda break and I was back in the air...

My last iteration had 4" Dave Brown foamie wheels. They provided so much aerodynamic drag that it precluded the 'ballooning' that occurs on a flat-bottom trainer wing at speed. And looked cool to boot!!!

RobStagis

And while I'm typing, build it with the maximum surface throws.....the instructions don't provide adequate control at 'trainer' throws (i.e., minimum)... After you fly it for a while, build in more-than-recommended throws..... I used mine as a fun-fly plane.

Tattoo

Here's a little more on my experiences with the planes. My first R/C plane was a Sig Colt, it got me my wings, but met it's demise by not pulling out my antenna. My second plane was a CG Falcon 56, which met it's demise by not glassing the wing center and broke in a loop (so any plane built poorly will do this, it's not the design). My third plane was a Balsa USA swizzle stick. By this time I could fly, a little shakey, but could get one up and back down. I built it per plans, and also glassed the wing center section. It was a tail dragger with a skid. It flew fantastic, and I flew it 100+ flights. I ended up making sheet metal engine mount "U" shaped doublers because the wood eventually got soft and began to wallow around the engine bolts. I broke the tail booms probably 10+ times, but always had epoxy in my flight box, and they were very easy to glue back together. It was originally a 3 channel rudder only plane, but once I was confident, I simply slotted the wing, added strip ailerons and a 4th servo, and it made a great aileron trainer. Although it wasn't as "smooth" as the CG Falcon 56, it was slower and a better trainer. I eventually destroyed it by trying inverted flight too low, over a cement runway. I loved the plane so much that I built a second, and also a third smaller .20 sized version. These planes took me well into my 3rd year in the hobby. So simple they are, that I got very good at using the plans to remake new parts, to the point that I was able to use what I had learned to scratch build my first own design based on it. My run of Swizzle sticks was followed by a run of 3 CG Falcon 56's and a Senior Falcon...and then into years of faster planes, kit bashing, own designing. In the 90's I revisited the Balsa USA (now Stick 40) design and built one for combat. The kit hadn't changed a bit other than the shape of the tail, and and flew even better than I had remembered. Again, built per plans with the wing glassed, we (my bubby built one too) flew them extreamly hard and the wings held up fine. On every one I built, I used conventional pushrods made from 1/4" dowels. My buddy and I had so much fun with them, that we stopped trying to combat with them because we didn't want to ruin such sweet flyers. It was then that we looked for alternated materials, and started building with Coroplast. It was only natural to build our first Coroplast airplane taking the measurements directly from the Swizzle sticks...as well as the concept of keeping things as simple as we could. Both of the Swizzle Sticks (to me that's what they will always be called ) were sold to people just getting into the hobby, and were put right back into service as successfull trainers. You definately won't be dissapointed, and will have a blast if you go this route!

Edit note: I used the term "kit bashing" which may be a new term to some beginners...I still remember when I first heard it, I though it was some sort of crashing ritual or something...it's not...the term "kit bashing" simply refers to building a kit, but changing it. Like tail shapes, or wing tip shapes, or converting a high wing into a low wing...etc...etc...you get the picture[8D]

auto5man

RobStagis,

By "building in more surface throws" I assume you're meaning to enlarge the aileron surface area kind of like what RVator did in his great looking Stick 40? (looks like his are the full length of the wing instead of just several inches)

Also, could you sort of describe in a little more detail the process of glassing the center of the wing? i.c. type of epoxe, do you mean use cloth too, etc? (full circumference of the wing?)

I'm loving all this input!

auto5man

Mike in DC

Actually, I think you'll find Tattoo's Spad plans to be MORE detailed than the plans you get with a kit. The kit designers normally assume that since they don't know what hardware you'll be installing, they leave that part out. Tattoo's plans tell you exactly what he uses, why he uses it, and how it goes together. Plus, Spads are just plain simpler than wood airplanes. The hard parts of a kit, which are covering and hinging, don't even happen when building a Spad. My very first Spad, a DPS, took me about 20 hours to build, because everything was so new. Even so, there aren't many guys who can build a wood kit in 20 hours, I know I still can't get anywhere close to that.

auto5man

Mike in DC,

If the kit doesn't explain hardware installation. What's a good resource for me that spells that sort of thing out? Do you have any tech/how-to online articles (links) handy with that sort of information?

auto5man

sandal

... I have the instruction manual and the plans for the Stick 40 on the building table right now, and all hardware installation is explained in the manual and shown on the plans. [sm=thumbup.gif]

RVator

My Feedback: (1)

The instruction book with the Stick and the plans are very complete. I didn't have any trouble building from them. Every diminsion and reference mark is on the full size plans. I used 30 min epoxy and 3inch wide strip of 2 oz fiberglass cloth to wrap the wing center. Its easy to do and adds a lot of strength. I would recomend Sticks to anyone starting in RC. It will teach you basic building skills and is a great plane to fly. I had fun building it. A lot of guys with RTF trainers don't seem to know much about how their planes work. Simple things like setting control throws or setting the throttle servo. If you build it you will learn these things.

auto5man

Thanks guys,

I'm glad to hear that the plans include how-to on the hardware and I'm planning to acquire and build the Stick 40 plus as my first kit and plane. Well, sort of my first. You see, RC flying has been a dream of mine for a long time ever since building the old plastic Ravel kits and Mono kits as a kid, war planes were my passion. I actually bought an RC kit years ago at a hobby shop on a whim, it was a USAir (I think) coroplast piper cub. Long story short, I didn't really have the resources at the time to buy radio and engine, etc., and stopped building when I was about half way through. (the chassis was done) As it turns out...years passed and I got married. I've recently found out that my wife (who is an obsessive cleaner) threw the box with all the hardware and instructions and left over parts away! So now I'm left with the fuse in the attic to stare at with nothing else. After taking a second look at the Spadder webstite, I don't see why I can't use the 40 trainer (kadet look-alike) wing plan and attach it to my left-over fuse and in that way make good use of it. So I do plan to build the stick forty first, but THANKS Tattoo for the tip on the SPAD website...there's a lot of great info there too. Bargain building APPEALS to me.

Tattoo, I tried to use the "SPAD builders near you" link but it didn't work on the website. My computer? or something going on with that link?

auto5man

Tattoo

The guy who hosts the locator is currently changing servers, and to top it off, he got called out of town on business...hopefully he'll get it back on line soon, it's a really neat service and has gotten a lot of hobbiests together to help each other out!

Lightfoot

My Feedback: (1)

I started flying a Swizzle Stick 30 many years ago. It was a 3 - channel with rudder for directional control. I was relatively pleased with the performance until I flew a 4 - channel trainer. I was amazed at how much easier the trainer was to fly.

I am a real fan of the Balsa USA Stick 40+. In fact, I recommend it more often than any other trainer for beginners. It is easy to build, easy to fly and tough as nails. I have one the original Stick Forty 3 - channel models that my dad gave me. He used it just for leisure flying until he quit flying a few years ago. I have a Stick 40+ that is ready for covering. It will be strictly for casual flying when I want to take it easy. One point about the Stick 40+ is that it is used by more clubs as a club trainer than any other model on the market. That should speak volumes about it.

By the way, there is a review of the Stick 40+ on my web page.