well, i crashed my trainer the other day due to radio failure, and need to get another plane so i can be back in business.... i want to use my engine (webra 40) and need an airplane that is forgiving enough to use as a second airplane, but challenging enough so that i learn more piloting skills. im thinking of either buying an arf (seagull spacewalker) or building a sig clipped wing cub (1/6 scale) im on a tight budget b/c im moving so im probably looking at about a month b4 im flying again, so i thought that building the cub will be a way to pass the time and i can buy bit by bit to finish the plane. the arf on the otherhand will be basically a one shot deal and i will have a low wing aerobatic plane that i can progress my skills with. but with the cub, i will be able to hone my building skills, and i can use this kit to learn how to work with fabric covering. i want to get more into scale planes (warbirds and multi engine models) so the cub will be a nice start into that route. i just dont know what would be in my "best interest" to help me get a little more into this hobby.
any advice or suggestions will be greatly appreciated.
thanx alot,
andrew

Building and flying are two different hobbies. If you're on a budget, an ARF is the way to go.

if its looked upon as two different hobbies, then i share an equal interest in both. as far as the cost factor goes, building this kit and buying the arf are about the same in price. the arf, which costs about $200 plus $240 for the hitec 7ch eclipse radio and glue to assemble the arf comes to around the $500 mark. where the kit only costs $83, plus glue, covering (about $75) and the $240 for the radio puts it at about $500. i still have the wheels, fuel tank and other misc items from my other airplane.

I test flew a Seagull Spacewalker for a friend and I thought it was very easy to fly. As long as you have solo'd with your trainer, you should do well with the Spacewalker. Tail-draggers handle differently than trike gear, so if it's your first, you might to have someone help you with the first couple of flights. But the Spacewalker tracks quite well on the take-off and the landing too.

A cub is an excellent first kit and first scale plane. I wouldn't hesitate a bit, I just finished my fourth cub, GP 60, and my first kit was a GP 40 cub years ago. The point of building and flying being separate entities is a resent phenomenon. I got into this hobby just as ARF were coming into the light over a decade ago and computer radio were stating to become reasonably affordable, now there dirt cheap. Building is what kept me in this hobby. I actually got pretty board with flying after a couple years when is became almost brainless, but building and racing kept my interest going and kept things interesting. You really begin to learn how the models functions and the fundamentals of flight really start making sense once you've built a couple models. The only problem I find with building is you get more attatched to kits you build, so if you loose one it hurts a little bit. Hell most of my kits have enough blood on them they'er almost in relation

I think you need to decide in this case which you want to do more, build or fly? I say that because if you're are just coming off your Trainer I believe you will find a Cub to be a bit of a handful in the air, & as redfox stated crashing a plane you built from sticks up is gonna hurt alot. I think you'll find the Spacewalker to be a much better suited #2 plane for flying. My #2 plane after my Trainers was a Dragon Lady with a Saito 100 on it. It is very similar in looks, style, & flying characteristics to the Spacewalker. I found it to be a very good step up from the Trainers. On low rates it is very docile & well behaved, on high rates it can be very aerobatic as well. It's really too bad you're on a budget right now because it would be ideal if you could ARF the Spacewalker & be furthering your skills as a pilot while you were building your Cub. Since it has to be one or the other for now I would choose the Spacewalker & build the Cub after I had more stick time under my belt, but that's just my opinion. Good luck in which ever route you decide upon.

if youre still on a trainer the sig somethin extra makes a good 2nd plane. That was my 2nd plane. the cub can be realy screwey on takeoff. got to be easy with it and dont jam the gas too hard on takeoff. besides the extra can be really fun to fly

Reviews I have read on the 1/6 scale SIG Cub are not the greatest but they are on the 1/5 scale. (I have the 1/5 myself) something about material die cut vs laser cut and assembly trouble with the 1/6 scale. Check around before you buy.

As Missleman said, the Sig 1/5 Cub is a better kit than the 1/6. It's newer, incorporates all the latest kit technology, and it probably flies better (educated guess). If you like building as much as flying, get the kit and reuse what you can from the trainer. I still think you'll pay a bit more for the kit in the end (building seems to necessitate lots of side trips to the LHS), but if you're a builder, it's more than worth it.

thanx for the input guys, i think that the cub or the spacewalker shouldnt be a prob, b/c the trainer i used (lt-25) is a tail dragger. plus i did have my controll throws turned up a bit, b/c the recommended throws made the plane a bit "boring". my instructor told me that im definately past the trainer point and should look into a more advanced model. i think that the fact of losing a plane i built, the 25 is a kit and i was pretty choked to see it hit the dirt. but i think as long as i can be working on something new, i wont have the time to mourn the loss of the plane. so i think that a kit is the way to go, but is the clipped wing cub fairly aerobatic? i really just want to do basic maneuvers, and once the winter comes, i was looking at maybe building the 1/4 scale spacewalker. i think that the scale part is what im after, is there any other scale plane that might fit the bill?

If you are talking scale with some basic airobatics? The list is quite long.
I am partial to warbirds myself.
Have you considered building a biplane? A nice tiger moth maybe? http://www2.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin...?&I=LXJ285&P=0

i dont think i am quite ready for a bibe.

The Tiger Moth isn't an aerobatic bipe, it was actually used as the primary trainer for many Air Force pilots back around the WWII era. I actually considered getting one as a first plane. Don't dismiss it too quickly if you like them. I don't think it would be much more difficult than a Space Walker.

Graham

i know the moth isnt that aerobatic, i do like the looks though, its just the glide path and the landing speed of this plane might be a problem. (i had my share of deadsticks with the lt b4 i got the webra 40)

I was just comparing the 1/4 Scale Sig Space Walker to the Great Planes Tiger Moth (I know its an ARF but just size comparing). The SW uses a 90-120 with an 84" span, 11-13lbs, and the Moth uses a 61-91 with a 71" span, 10-1/4 lbs and two wings. Both have similar dihedral. I'm betting the moth actually glides better.

Yeah okay, so I was tossing the idea of getting one around myself[sm=lol.gif]

Cheers,
Graham