BDAD Flyer

My Feedback: (15)

Hello
I heard that Durplane 40 trainer is very tough, but whats it like in the air? Does it fly and glide well? What is good and bad about duraplane trainer?
Thank you

RCLIVIN

My Feedback: (46)

The duraplane is a good durable trainer, I taught my son to fly with one. We have had it for 1 1/2 yrs, It has about 50-60 flights on it, it has been in a tree 2 times, hit the field box very hard once & landed very hard numerous times & is still in great shape. If I had to do it all over again I wouldn't change a thing.
Good luck
Gil

Tattoo

The DuraPlane is a great airplane...but...

It's heavier and has a higher wing loading than the current industry "standard" trainers. So by comparison in terms of slow flight charicteristics, it doesn't fly as good as say an Avistar or LT-40. Some versions are tail draggers, and although there are some who claim that learning on a tail dragger is no more difficult than a trike geared plane...I'm sorry, but I strongly disagree...and that comes from years of watching new pilots veering off the runway, ground looping, and nose planting tail draggers. But...this is not a bad thing...and the DuraPlane can take it, and to master it now will get you ahead of the game right from the start, especially if you like tail draggers

The main thing Duraplane has going for it is durability, and it's a simple fact that you can't learn how to fly...if your not flying. Hard landings, and mild dirt naps that would finish the day and possibly the life of a "industry standard" trainer, will only give a Duraplane a scuff mark and maybe a broken prop.

Another thing to think about is transition to your next plane, and this comes from years of observation. I've seen guys trapped in trainerland far too long, because they simply grow acustomed to a plane that is too gentle, and are afraid to progress. This of course is fine if that's what you want from the hobby. I've also seen beautiful "2nd" planes demolished because pilots weren't ready for it. Some of the tough planes such as the DuraPlanes and AirCores do not fly as good as industry standard trainers. BUT THIS DOESNT MEAN THEY FLY BAD. They actually fly great! Just not as TAME as a lightweight and much more fragile airplane. They require higher throttle settings, hotter landings, and are generally a little faster...BUT NOT REALLY THAT MUCH, and training can successfully be accomplished with the help of a good instructor. Once the training phase is over, and you're on your own...the DuraPlane will take the lumps THAT YOU WILL GIVE IT And again...you can't progress if you are not flying, and since you started with an airplane that is a little faster, and you knocked the dirt off it after minor misshaps, kept flying and learning, weren't afraid of turning it into a pile of toothpicks, you're transition into your next plane will be much easier, and your control reactions will be better and quicker.

Choosing a Duraplane might also have to do with what you want out of the hobby. If you like good looking airplanes (DuraPlanes are ugly as heck), and just love flight, and are content to fly conservitivly and not take chances, and are not in a hurry to learn, and are willing to take your time and enjoy easy relaxed flying, it may not be the plane for you. But if you want to push the envelope...learn as fast as you can, progress yesterday to your next plane, don't mind what your plane looks like, want to take a shot at landing it even if your not sure, see how long you can hold the spin before you pull out...and don't mind buying props...etc...etc...than get the DuraPlane and have a blast!

It might also interest you to know that replacment parts for a DuraPlane are dirt cheap. The fuselage is gutterpipe, and about $6 will get you 10 feet of it. The Aluminum channel is available at any LOWES or hardware store, and less than $10 will get you 8 feet of it. The landing gear are aluminum stock also available at LOWES or any hardware store, and less than $5 will get you 8 feet of it. The tail feathers can be replaced with Coroplast, and even the wing can be replaced with a coroplast version. $8 will buy you a 4 foot x 8 foot sheet of coroplast, and that's enough for 4 wings...or 3 wings and endless supply of tail feathers. The plastic firewall and engine mount can be replaced with an HDPE version simply cut out of Wal-Mart kitchen cutting board material. For much more on this type of stuff...there is an entire forum dedicated to it here at RCU, check out http://www.rcuniverse.com/forumdispl...s=&forumid=235

There is also a lot of information about scratchbuilding airplanes using these materials at http://www.spadtothebone.com

banktoturn

Vsustco22,

I have to disagree. I found the Duraplane to fly poorly. It was too fast for a trainer, and not as stable as a trainer should be. I also found the claims of durability to be exaggerated. I started with a Duraplane, did a fair number of flights, and then piled it in, and switched to a Goldberg Eagle II. The Eagle fuselage is a sturdy box built of light plywood, and is very strong. I have never crashed it, but I have landed hard, and would have to say it is just as tough as the Duraplane fuselage. The two main differences are that the drainpipe portion of the Duraplane can be more quickly and cheaply replaced, and the aluminum tail boom can be straightened, sort of.

I think that the idea that a trainer should be crash proof is wrong. A trainer should fly well ( slowly and stably ), and should be sturdy enough for rough landings. If you are learning with an instructor, which you absolutely should be doing, then it is absolutely unnecessary to have an 'indestructible' plane, which the Duraplane is not anyway. Get something that flies well, and don't crash it. If you really feel the need to have something dirt cheap and tough, look into the 'SPAD' planes built from coroplast, but make sure that you end up with something that flies slowly, and has plenty of dihedral in the wing. Also, I strongly recommend a plane with ailerons, rather than just a rudder for steering.

Just my 2 cents.

Good luck,

banktoturn

vegas mossie

I base this on my personal experience, I found the dura plane to be a nice flying airplane. The biggest mistake I made was to put a 46 fx in it. This plane does not like to fly fast. I did most of my flying at 1/3 throttle. I like it for the days I just want to putt putt around the field. ( I have picked up a 40 la to put in it, so I will let you know how it goes ) The manual clearly states not to over power the plane, even warns against this. Other than that, mine flies fine. Good luck with what ever you choose. Loren

pinball-RCU

If you're looking for a durable trainer (and I think you should), you might want to look at the U.S. Aircore, the Airmadillo trainer, and of course the Spads.

I learned on a U.S. Aircore trainer, and I absolutely love the plane. It is, IMHO, the most durable plane you can buy, since the coroplast fuse takes up a lot of the crash shock. The downside is it's a kit (but 100 times easier than a wood kit).

I haven't actually flown the Airmadillo, but I've talked a lot with the guys at my field who have them, and they love them. It's a very clever design and looks really tough and easy to repair.

The Spad Debonair is a good choice if you like to build, and modify your design, or if you really like the idea of sinking almost zero dollars into the plane. It also helps if you like to get your information from the web.

banktoturn, I agree with you that planes made out of lite-ply boxes can be very rugged, particularly if the wing is held on with rubber bands. Those of us who fly plastic tend to forget that a lot of wood planes aren't made out of balsa any more. But, as you suggest, when a crash does occur, even if the damage is similar, the wood plane is going to take a lot more work to repair. On a Spad, I typically just move all the hardware to a brand new fuse which costs a couple of bucks and maybe 10 minutes to cut out.

An area where I disagree is the idea that if you have an instructor you won't destroy your trainer. This is absolutely true as long as your instructor is with you. However, at some point, you solo, you become (over) confident, you want to push the envelope a little, there's a little more wind than usual, or whatever. In other words, that period right after you solo, but before you have 100's of flights of experience is VERY hard on airplanes!

What I did (although it wasn't planned that way), was to learn on a balsa plane up until solo. As soon as I didn't have an instructor to save my plane when I got in trouble, I moved to "durable" planes. It just didn't make sense to spend so much time repairing.

Calmo2

Hi; I learned to fly on one and I liked it. I flew on a buddy box with my friend and after awhile I could fly inverted, do loops and rolls and I had a few dead sticks and it seemed to glide pretty good. I powerd mine with a OS.46 LA, and after awhile I converted mine to a tail-dragger and didn't have any problems with take-offs. I had a few minor crashes but it was very easy to repair. Just my 2 cents worth. Good luck!

RCLIVIN

My Feedback: (46)

As I said before I trained my son with the duraplane, It has good slow flying characteristics. I powered it with an la46. My son learned to fly with this plane & we are now building a 40 sized extra 300 for him. the duraplane is pretty fast @ full throttle so I dont think he will have any problem with the extra.

Gil

Tattoo

Since we are on the subject of DuraPlanes, flight performance, and this is the beginners forums...respectfully, I think the above statement could use some good level headed discussion because I've heard it often here, as guys like Vsustko22 are reading...trying to decide what to buy and how to get into the hobby. I personally and respectfully cannot agree at all. One of the biggest questions I have had over the last 22 years that I've been flying at the same field...is...where have the literally hundreds of new guys with their first planes gone? Our club has approx 100 members, and any given day at the field there may be 6 or 8 guys, always the same, out flying. Yet over the last 22 years, I'll bet we've seen a good 1000 or more show up with their first plane. Sometimes they are determined to fly on their own and wipe out right away. Sometimes it's during training. But the majority of the time it's shortly after soloing, and they are getting pretty good at flying the pattern...they get brave and splatter. Of the numbers of times I've seen this happen, the percentage of times we see the same person back to try again is VERY VERY small, and very often, if they do show back up...it's with a DuraPlane, AirCore or more recently a Spad. I've also seen one guy show up with and Armidillo and it was a very impressive flyer, and the guy LOVED it. Having spent many many many afternoons at the field, I've had the opportunity to witness many solos, many trainees/trainers and far too many crashes...and I'm sorry...but amount of guys who crash as new pilots, so far outnumber the amount of guys that don't, it's not even a contest. I almost have to believe that if a crash results in minor repair, a new prop,and some rubberbands...many of the guys, who saw $100+ and weeks/months worth of work splattered all over the field, would have otherwise stuck with the hobby.

RCLIVIN

My Feedback: (46)

I totally agree with you tatoo, if you can make minor repairs & get back in the air, their is a much greater chance that the individual will stay in the hobby.

Gil

banktoturn

Tattoo,

If most people find that the DuraPlane allows them to quickly and cheaply get back in the air after crashes that would have 'splattered' a more conventional trainer, then I must concede that it is a good thing. That wasn't my experience, and, as I said, I found it to be a poor flyer. I've been wrong before. Perhaps it would be more appropriate for me to restate: I don't think it's a good idea to give up good flying qualities in exchange for a supposedly 'indestructible' plane. A little less extreme, but we needn't all agree with this new statement either.

Vsustko22, don't let my low opinion of the DuraPlane scare you off. A lot of these guys have had more experience with it than I did.

Good luck,

banktoturn

oparatomcat

Well, here's my 2 cents. I started with a duraplane and still love flying it 2 years later. I have crashed it more than I can count (about used up my spare 10 ft section of downspout) and it still fun. Flys the way you set it up. I played with mine by raising/lowering both ailerions to inprove the flying characteristics. Get them set right makes it fly like it's on rails,get them wrong and it mushs around with little control authority.My latest version I increased ailerion width to 1 1/2 ins. and added wing plates, boy does this make it roll. Since it does't look like a real plane it doesn't bother me to hurt it trying new manuevers.

Tattoo

I've done a lot of experimenting with the construction materials of DuraPlanes and AirCores, and I would really encourage these manufacturers to revisit their designs. They do fly good enough to train on, and really help with transitioning to your next plane. They also keep you in the air to accomplish that training, but as banktoturn states, flight charicteristics seam to be the biggest complaint. I don't see them as having poor flight charicteristics in terms of general flying (set up right they fly GREAT), but I do see it when compared to lighter balsa airplanes with lower wing loading. These tough airplanes accomplish their mission very well, but there is absolutely no reason they can't be designed with a larger wing and the same wing loading as their balsa counterparts. It would put a tamer flying much tougher airplane in the hands of the beginners...it's do-able, I know because I've done it with my own experiments. Airplanes fly because of their design, not what they are made of. I often wonder if there is not more to this than meets the eye from a marketing standpoint. Do the companies make more money from the large volume of first time pilots that don't stick with the hobby...or from the small percentage of pilots that do stick with the hobby? Knowing that a very high percentage of pilots don't stick with it, do thy make more money selling the newbie a $100+ balsa ARF, or a $70 DuraPlane that will last awhile. Other things that would be very interesting would be to know what percentage of ARF's sold actually make it to the air? What percentage of the ones that do, produce a pilot that stays in the hobby? What percentage of balsa ARF's sold produce a pilot that make it to their second plane? What percentage of DuraPlane's sold produce a pilot that makes it to their second plane? What would a very tame flying, extreamly durable, trainer (that exceeded the current industry standard "tame trainer" flight performance) do to the sales of the 100+ balsa ARF's? Are the companies purposely not shooting one of their biggest markets in the foot?

pinball-RCU

You're starting to sound a littlle paranoid, Tattoo. What is the chance of every rugged plane manufacturer agreeing to produce bad planes so to keep up sales for everybody else? Zero. I believe the manufacturers are giving, to the best of their ability, what they think consumers want. Are they perfect? No way, but the consumer is still King.

I can't help but notice how dramatically things have changed in the past two years. When I started flying, if a beginner (like me) got online and asked about a durable trainer, they would be drowned in responses like, "Flies like a brick," "If it's built to crash it will crash", etc. I assume the same thing would happen if they asked at the field.

Now, on the forum, the "Flies like a brick" is gone, and while some still disagree, we can at least have a reasonable discussion on the merits. At the field, plastic planes are now welcome. But still, the LHS where I shop has no durable planes. I don't think it's a conspiracy. When we get to the point that when a beginner goes to the field and asks what plane they should get (or asks the same question here), and the response is a durable plane (not a SIG LT40), you'll see the manufacturers start to produce better planes. As it is, I don't think the market is large enough to allow a lot of R&D.

Change comes slowly to human beings. Patience.

p.s. The wing loading of a U.S. Aircore trainer is identical to a Debonair. Airmadillo should be about the same as well. The Duraplane is a bit higher.

Tattoo

It's not paranoid, it's total frustration. As much as I want to see the hobby grow, and new guys stick with it...and then I keep seeing the crash scenario happen over and over. Yet I see a handfull of guys bashing around DuraPlanes, AirCores and Spads having a blast. The drop out rate is less, and I see the guys making it to better faster airplanes, as well as become regulars at the field. Heck, it's what gave us the idea for Spads in the first place!

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Hobbico ownes Great Planes, DuraPlane, AirCore, Sturdy Birdy, and just about everything else on the main pages of the Tower cataloge. I still remember when AirCore was starting to grow...and then were bought out by Hobbico and their selection and popularity died overnight.

I know...I know...paradynes die hard

When I met Sassy, she was flying a DuraPlane (After destroying her LT-40). At 5.5 pounds with a GP .42 it had a wing loading of 25.8. The last of two AirCore Trainers that Kraut had with a TT pro .46 came in at almost 7 pounds for a wing loading of 21.1 The original Debonair built per plans (Heck...built for the plans!) came in at 6.5 pounds for a wing loading of 20.8. If you build it RNAF style you can knock that down to 19.2 and if you build the wing with all 2mm coroplast it comes in at 17.6. We've recently been flying the BUHOR with a wing loading of 14.9 and the Spadet at 15.1. My latest BUHOR has a wing loading of 13.8 and we've been flying combat Spads with the wing loading under 12. I know it can be done, and if the industry REALLY wanted to, they could let the balsa trees grow, and give the new pilots very tough airplanes that outfly what's out there now.

Again, I'm not saying the DuraPlane flies bad..but if they would grow their wing another couple hundred square inches, and inlarge the tail some...it would replace the industry standard trainers...and I find it hard to believe the company designers don't know that.

pinball-RCU

Tattoo, I totally share your frustration. Don't forget, I was one of those beginners who had to live through the comments and the ridicule. And I agree that Hobbico hasn't done much for Aircore, which is a shame. Still, I don't think Hobbico owns Airmadillo, which from what I see is one of the nicest durables around.

If everytime a newbie asked what plane they should get, they heard "Airmadillo", I can guarantee Hobbico would promote their durables and put some R&D into getting the wing loading down.

But that's not what's happening. What's happening is the newbie goes to the field or the LHS, and is told everybody buys an LT40, or an Avistar or a Superstar, etc.

In the words of Walt Kelly's Pogo: "We have met the enemy, and they are us" (or something like that).

Tattoo

We've only had one Armidillo show up at the field...I don't have a clue what the wing dimensions or weight is, but I can say the wing was considerably larger than a DuraPlane, and it really is a great flyer. It's been around a long time too. Having just started experimenting with aluminum (thanks to DuraPlane) I'm amazed at how strong and light it is. Also very cheap and plentiful at LOWES

Tattoo

Cool...did a search and found the Armidillo web site, wow! They've got some cool stuff!

http://www.kombat40.com/

pinball-RCU

They are definitely Spad at heart. Did you see the fuel tank with the end cut off used to house the receiver and battery? Also nice is you buy the thing with a 60" wing for training, then just buy a 48" wing for sport flying. I can't describe how the torque rods on the ailerons work, but it's a very clever design. They're even into the re-design thing. They have a link on their site to a guy that shows how you can improve the front engine so your engine survives better in a crash.

Tattoo

They give the wing dimensions and weight on the web site...it has a wing loading of 15.7 ...that is incredable, no wonder it flies so good! I like the way they describe crash damage...replace some nylon bolts and bend the fuselage back straight over your knee. I was also surprised that they have been around for 15 years!

rajul

My Feedback: (58)

So much talk about the airmadillo. C'mon, post some pics of your airmadillo here and close ups of any mods done.......

Tattoo

This is the one pictured on the Armidillo web site...I was also looking at what comes with the kit, and it's all there from wheels to pushrods etc... everything, so at first what seems like a pretty steep price really isn't too bad at all. I've only seen one, but it would be interesting to hear more about them from guys that have them. I noticed they called Coroplast "rubberized" plastic I don't know if I'd go that far...unless they are using something I don't know about...it may bounce back from a crash like rubber though

Dave Bowles

My Feedback: (7)

I would like to remind some folks that there are several differant models of the duraplane, the duraplane 20 is a 3 channel tail dragger, most who don't like them have eather underpowered or overpowered(to much weight) . The trainer 40 uses a larger wing with the same fuse as the 20 but is a trike gear, with a 40 -46 bushing it is a nice flying plane, easy to train on, the DuraStik is the largest and best flying but the wing is not as strong, it has been waffeled to lighten it up, but an excellent flying craft, the last is the Durabat, about the size of the trainer 20 but with alerons and a tappered wing, most make it to heavy bu putting a .46 pro style engine vs a lighter bushing or a .32 or 36 engine, it is already heavier than the trainer 20 . it flies O.K. but is not a floater at all, mine would never recover from an inverted spin. I have owned and flown all of the models , I still have the 20 size, great for combat or high wind days, still only rudder and elevator.

The trainer 40 and Durastik make great trainers.

pinball-RCU

From what I saw at the field, the wing is exactly what we call coroplast. It's all 4mm, and the wing tips are sealed (the top and bottom are just glued together). That makes it a really rugged piece of plastic, although heavier than an RNAF wing. The site has instructions on unsealing the wing to replace the spar, but from the look of the wing you could run it over with a truck and beat it against the flag pole without hurting the spar.

I'm somewhat tempted to buy one. I'd really like to be able to authoritatively say to any of the many "What trainer should I buy?" posts, that if you're not into building, and you want to deal with an established firm, that this would be a great choice. I think we've made great progress quieting the anti-plastic noise, but we're still not at the point where a durable plane is the one most recommended.

You know, Tattoo, you're starting to inspire me on this crusade. Until I met you on-line, I was just happy with my own happiness. I'll never forget the great feeling I had when (against everybody's advice) I threw out my balsa trainer, and moved to the Aircore. Nobody would believe the plane flew, but a lot of it was I was just a much better flyer not worrying about crashing all the time. At trainer day at the field, some newbie shot down my Aircore. Now, I ask you, how would I feel if the same guy had destroyed my balsa trainer? I'd either have to eat the damage, which would suck, or insist that a complete newbie who didn't know any better pay for my plane, which would suck just as much, maybe more. As it was, we educated the newbie, but no harm was done, and 1/2 hour later the Aircore was flying again.

I've not only seen many balsa planes destroyed from newbies with dumb thumbs, but I've seen wood trainers wings fold in the air for no reason at all. I've talked to the really discouraged folks afterwards, and they're not crying, but really, I don't think I'm the only one for whom $100 is still real money. The "no pain, no gain" thing is out of control.

So, starting now, I think I will become more aggressive in promoting durable trainers. You should see how happy the guy (and his young son) are who fly the Airmadillo at my field. A lot of times, with the families with wood trainers, the Dads watch the kids learn, but don't try themselves. Not this pair!

So newbies, listen up! What you've been told is all wrong. A SIG LT40 is NOT a great trainer. An Avistar is NOT a great trainer. A trainer is just that, a plane to learn to fly with. If you don't crash it, you're being way too cautious, and not having as much fun as you should. If you can build a kit, I personally recommend the Aircore trainer, because I have personal experience with it. If you can get information from the Internet, and like to build from scratch, everything I've read indicates that a SPAD Debonair should fly almost exactly like the Aircore. (I do have a lot of experience with some of the other Spads.) If you'd like an ARF from an established company, a family at my field loves their Airmadillo. (Sorry, despite the name of this thread, I have no personal experience with the DuraPlane.)

If your instructor balks, or people laugh at you, tell them you read about it on the Internet! Learning to fly model airplanes should be a fun, laugh-out-loud, enjoy-the-freedom type of experience, not a white-knuckle skinned-knees painful one.

tileflyer

My Feedback: (9)

Go to the spad website and build a trainer ,I did after I destroyed my wood trainer. I will never go back to wood now.Spad flys just as well as wood. and think of it as recycling....LOL all coroplast Spad stick