Hi everybody!

LT-40, as I gathered from browsing the web, would be a good first-time trainer.
I would like to build from scratch since I have some experience in building planes
(not flying them though). Does anybody know where can I get plans for this or
similar plane?

Also, this plane is quite large. Do you guys think there may be a smaller plane
that would be appropriate for learning to fly, and that isn't too hard to build?
Naturally, I would like to build something sturdy, not so fast, so I could actually
learn something about flying before I crash it beyond repair.

Thanks!
Gena.

P.S. Yes, I know, I'll try to find either a club or somebody to instruct me.

Its noble, to build from plans, to 'scratch build'

RCM sells a few designs, somed that are trainers. Dunno if you'll find an LT 40. But you might want to contact the boys at Sig, since they are the designers and kitters of this fine ariplane. A set of plans shoudl be no worry.. just a few $$

But buying a kit does have some benefits, as all parts are pre-cut for you, you have an instruction book, and you are given most required hardware to finish the model. You'll only be required to purchace a few items to complete the plane. And I beleive a kit, this complete, will be cheaper in the long run..

this is a '40 sized' plane, meanign it'll require abotu a .40 sized engine.

ther eare smaller ones, such as a .25 sized trainer, but the smaller they get, the 'squirrely' they get, even wiht some 'light' winds. You might want to then look at an electric trainer, as they are generally a smaller plane.

We start with 40, because it is a resonalbly sized plane.. fist most cars, and wallets, flyes on most days (windy..) and can bee seen..

So, is LT-40 really the best trainer for beginners in this class?
What are other alternatives? Is PT-40 any different?

Also, I have read in some other thread that .46 engine is better
for LT-40, is that so, or it is going to be overpowered?

Gena.

I use a .46 in my LT40, and it works quite well. It is easy to see - the advantage of being big, and it can glide longer than the pt-40 that flies around when I do (I have knowledge from watching him dead stick, and me as well )

I like mine, and the kit was very easy to put together - very informative, with good instructions/pictures.

The LT-40 is without a doubt the best trainer. The longer wingspan makes it more stable for the beginning flyer. I'd recommend a .46 size engine. We have 7 of them for trainers at our club, Wyoming Modelers Park.

What about the Kadet MkII? Is it as good? It is smaller,
so is it much harder to fly?

Gena.

Welcome aboard, Gena. The LT-40 and PT-40 are wonderful trainers, as are the Solo Sport and the RCM Trainer, and many others. For plans, you might check RCM for that RCM Trainer, which I have used for training. Compared to the LT-40, well, they're both great.

The only real advantage of buying a .46 for your trainer, as opposed to a .40, is that for your second and subsequent planes, you'll probably want a bit more power. There are more suitable second planes which call for a .46 than those which call for a .40 as the smallest engine choice.

Otherwise, in use as a learning vehicle, the .40 will provide Rise-Off-Ground takeoffs, and adequate flying speed, plus it is somewhat less likely to develop speeds in excess of what you can handle as a student.

Good luck,
Dave Olson

Just finished and LT40 and it would be hard to scratch build the fuse as it is all lite ply that interlocks. You would basicly have to take the dimensions and scratch design the fuse from those dimensions. Should be doable though. If you are looking for a builders kit you might consider the Kadet MKII. Very pretty looking plane I think. I don't know how to fly yet so I don't know much about flying one or having seen one but I know it's an old school plane that is harder to build than an LT40. This is my third plane I've built though. This time I'm going to learn to fly!

You want an easy first time build and free plans that you don't have to worry about where to get them? http://stevesarlls.homestead.com/spadworld/spadet.htm for the "SPADET LC-40" It is a nearly direct copy of the LT-40 but done in Coroplast. Very inexpensive to build. Very durable and... flies just like the Sig balsa and lite-ply model. (there is NO negative point to this airplane!)

www.spadtothebone.com for other inexpensive ways to get some neat looking airplanes flying.

2 FHHuber: Thanks, FHHuber, this is a great link. I really appreciate this.

What others are thinking about the plastic schematics compared to traditional ones?
(No offence, FHHuber, I just would like to hear more opinions.) If there are no serious
complications with plastics, I will probably go with it. It looks so simple!

Gena.

RCM has plans for the PT-40. It is a fantastic trainer. And all the information you would need would come with the plans. You also get a reprint of the construction article. At a great price too. As far as spads go I will not comment. I have limited knowledge in them. I personally in your case buy the PT plans and build away. Your second plane could be a spad. Then you would get experience in both worlds. Good luck whichever way you go.

Mark Shuman

I think you'll find the SPAD proponents are perhaps overly enthusiastic about the designs. If you can afford a kit plane, or want to build, you would do well to build a kit or from plans. SPAD building will not contribute to your balsa building skills. I personally have not seen a SPAD of any type fly well, but SPAD proponents claim they fly well.

Of course, if you cannot afford a kit, a SPAD would probably reduce your cost. I still recommend a good flying trainer like the LT 40, PT 40, RCM trainer, Solo Sport or Aerostar.

Good Luck,
Dave Olson

If you could only visit one of the groups that flys SPADS... you will see that:

Early SPAD designs are heavy and not very good. (amazingly like the US Aircores kits...)

Newer SPAD designs can directly compete with balsa models for performance and wing loading. The wings tend to be a little heavier... the fuselages a little ligter than the balsa versions. (A coroplast "copy" of a 4*60 has been made that is the same weight as the kit version by Sig...)

I mostly fly balsa models... I've been building with "oddball" materials every chance I get for over 20 years though. Sailplanes made from refrigerator boxes are interresting and essentially made of free materials.

Balsa was initially used for models because it was CHEAP and easy to get. (you could get it from crates at the grocery store trash pile... kind of like coroplast signs now.) The fact that it is a light strong easilly worked material was just a bonus. If all that had been easilly available in the 1930's was soft pine... we'd be using a lot more soft pine in our models now.

Early use of styrofoam was ridiculed... now its used extensively for wing cores.

Coroplast is just another material to learn to use in order to get the most flying for the lowest cost.

Guys,

this may sound silly, but still... Is there a way to get free/inexpensive
plans for a (not SPAD) plane like LT-40, PT-40 or so? I do not know
if it is customary in this community to share plans like that, but I am
pretty sure there are tons of people who build these planes.

I am sorry, if I am out of the element here.

Gena.

you can try this link http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/Link...1563599/tm.htm

As for the comparison to the Kadet Mk II, the LT 40 is an easier / modern build.

I have built the Mk II and personally feel it is more building than most 'beginners' what to get into. not to mention it is a dated design, and retains a lot of the 'old time' building techniques. No real 'interlocking' tabs & slots and such.. A lot of cutting, carving, and sanding things to shape..

If you do choose to go with a built-up wooden plane, I have a couple of inputs from experience...[ol][*]A cheap source for LT-40 plans is the source... SIG sells plans for their designs at very reasonable prices.[*]The LT-40 is not a good scratch build. It's got a lot of large plywood parts that are awkward to handle nad expensive to buy materials for... I watched a buddy build himself an LT-40 and pay as much for materials as he'd have spent on the kit.[*] The LT-40 is a tail-heavy bird. Yes, it's an outstanding trainer once it's balanced, but balancing it means adding a bigger engine and/or dead weight... both dissapointing things to do to an object of your own creation.[*] The PT-40 (formerly kitted by Great Planes) was an outstanding trainer, too -- and it was designed for scratch building and constructed from balsa, not plywood. The source for PT-40 plans is R/C Modeler magazine, another source of reasonably priced plans... if you build in wood, you may be much happier with it than you'd be with the LT-40. [/ol]I forgot -- I meant to mention as well, that building your first trainer -- especially from scratch -- is something most people advise you away from these days... but people still do it, and personally, I did it. in my case it was the [link=http://www.rcmmagazine.com/e/env/0001bI6gJJ89f4gROQ1L2T5/store/store-plans-alpha.html?link=/store/store-plans-catalog-tem.html&item=plans:PL-354]RCM Basic Trainer[/link], and a real sweet flyer it was... cheap plans and cheap easy construction too. (It's 3 1/2 pound all-up weight was not well suited to the .40 sized maximum power they recommend, but with a smaller engine it was a thing of great beauty.)