I'd like to get into flying and from what I've read the Tower Hobbies TOWER Trainer 40 MKII AFR is a great beginner plane. First question is will the os .35 fp engine I have work with this plane or am I better off getting the bigger .40 or .46? The .35 is left over from a airboat that has disintegrated but the engine always ran like a champ. The template that came with the engine shows the same footprint as the .40 but would the lower hp of the .35 cause me any problems? Or is there another good beginner plane out there that the .35 will work great in?

Also what would be a good remote for this plane and future planes? It seems that I can get away with getting a 4 channel remote but I think if I stick with this sport I'd be kicking myself in the butt down the road if I didn't get a 6 channel for future planes.

Thanks!

You "could" get away with a 35 engine, but you'd be happier getting new 40-46 engine.

As for the radio, you might want to look at the new 2.4 Ghz Spread Spectrum radios. They are a bit more pricey, but you have the advantage of never having frequency conflicts. Plus, they are radios you can use later on down the road as you get more planes
[link]http://2.4gigahertz.com/[/link]
[link]http://www.horizonhobby.com/Products/Default.aspx?ProdID=SPM2710[/link]

The Futaba is a litte bit less than the Spread Spektrum radio, but the Futaba doesn't come with servos. But that's not a huge deal as you can get standard servos for around ~$10-$15.

Hope this helps

Ken

I've got a O.S .40 in mine, personally I wouldn't go lower than that. Although the minimum is .35 I was told it is always best to at least get the size in the middle range of the recommended scale, but if you must use the .35 it certainly can - but the power will be that much more limited.

Sig Kadet Senior trainer http://www2.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin...?&I=LXFF89&P=7 would be a perfect candidate for your O.S .35 and a real great build if you don't mind building your plane.

How about another plane? What do you guys think about these?
http://www2.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0093p?&C=AAB

RCKen- The 2.4gigahertz radio looks like a pretty neat feature. Would add a little piece of mind while flying I'd imagine. Do you have any experience with these newer remotes?

Tigerdude- I just did a little reasearch and the .35 is rated at .8hp while the .40 is rated at 1hp. 20% hp drop seems like alot. I wonder if my engine would be fine in the tower trainer or would I be better off with a smaller trainer? If I were to get the fancy 2.4gigahertz remote that would take a big cut out of the budget.

Thanks guys!

Yikes! That's a big plane. 78"! Would that be able to do any manuevors?

Here is one of better size. The Sig Kadet Mark II Trainer
http://www2.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin...?&I=LXFF91&P=0

The question is would you mind building your own kit or are you looking only for ARF?

This one here would also be great for you .35

Don't mind having to build my own kit. I have a good couple months before I would be able to take flight anyways. It's snowing a TON right now in MN!

That kit does look kinda neat! Does anyone have any experience with the plane above?

Building a plane from a kit rather than an ARf will give you a lot more knowledge than just looking at a built ARf from the outside and gluing a few parts together. I think this is a better way to go. It will cetainly help when you buy a 2nd type plane that doesn't have many instructions because its assumed you learned the "basic" when you built your trainer.

You might want to consider a Sig Kadet LT-25 Trainer Kit:

http://www2.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin...?&I=LXFG17&P=0

It would be a good fit for your OS engine. In addition our club uses it in our youth program and a 10 year old can build it in about 15hrs with a little help. Plus it is very easy to learn how to fly. We soloed 2 kids this year with about a half gallon of fuel using this plane. The kit is all lazer cut and SIG makes great planes of all types to help you advance. Don't be put off that it's a taildragger. That will present little problem with this plane.

Good luck.

The O.S. .35 FP would be more than enough motor for a Sig Kadet LT-25 kit as well.

Yes I agree. That is another very nice airplane and would be a great companion to your engine. I have that kit myself put aside for a later build, I am putting a GMS2000 .32 ABC engine in it. Won't hurt it to put a .35 in it, the difference in size isn't significant enough to matter. And like oldvet70 says, all the parts are laser-cut to make the build very accurate, faster and extremely easy to build from the looks of it and I can not wait to start building it myself, but at this moment I am working on a Lanier ST-40 trainer that I am modifying to electric power. Even the control surfaces are pre-shaped and practically ready for hinging right out of the box.

I highly recommend the LT-25 for you, I believe you will be very happy with it - I don't think you will mind the tail-dragger either. Just a bit different approach with takeoffs and landings but you will love it I think.

If you prefer a tricycle gear I still recommend the Kadet Mark II as I suggested earlier. But if it don't matter and tail-dragger is OK with you go with the LT-25.

Which one is easier to take of and land, tail-dragger or tricycle?

Thanks guys! I'm getting excited about all this!

The Tower trainer will "fly " fine with your .35 the problem will be the take off...I have a .40 LA on mine and have had to hand launch it myself just because of wet grass...I do have to fly in the mornig because I work at night though.....Rog

Tail draggers are a bit easier on grass, tricycle gear is a bit easier on pavement. Neither one is really all that difficult on its opposite take-off/landing surface, it's just a matter of practice.

As you advance in the hobby, almost all advanced airplanes are tail-draggers, so there's no better time to learn than the present.

The LT25 is as easy to take off and land as other trike gear trainers because of the fuse length. We sold off our LT40 but kept the LT25 when we disovered how much better it could handle very windy conditions.[8D]

I'll have to take a close look at the LT25. Might be the way to go for me!

You won't be sorry with the LT-25, with me building one myself real soon we could be helping each other along.

Let us know what you decide, I am real curious now what you decide on. Keep us posted.

I have a Tower Trainer ARF and I don"t like it much for the following reasons. The tank is rather large and wedged between the formers with rubber on the side of the formers. You cannot get the tank out unless you remove the engine. The engine is not bolted directly to the mount, It has metal straps thet clamp down on the engine lugs that are then bolted to the mount. It is heavier and ,for me a little harder to fly than my PT-40. I bought the Tower as a quick replacement for my PT-40 when It went down (not my fault) and was damaged. Maybe I am just use to PT. The covering is very thin, I think it is Towercoat, and the trim will start coming loose about your forth flight. If you do not use the tower engine you will have trouble attaching the fuel line after fueling. The fuel line exits the firewall in the middle of the mount under the engine and then routed to the remote needle valve. I have a Magnum and the nipple does not point upward (like the Tower), rather in, paralell to the firewall. It is difficult to get your fingers in to attach the fuel line. I built my PT-40 from the plans and used the kit for patterns before I sold it. I took out some dihedral, about 2 inches overall. If you are building a kit, I would recommend the PT-40. If you are getting an ARF I would recommend the Lanier Explorer. Some of the guys in our club bought them to enter the trainer races we have each month and they like them. As I said, it my be just that I am use to the PT-40, but I find some of the things mentioned above, annoying. Hope this is helpful. BTW...I flew my PT-40 and Tower Trainer at half throttle with a Magnum 46 so the FP35 will fly them but takeoffs might be a problem....The Lanier is lighter than both of them.

After thinking it over I'm leaning a bit towards the ARF kits. Chances are my first plane is going to take more than one digger. I think It would "hurt" less if I wrecked a plane that I just bought instead of a plane that I've spent hours and hours building. Does this make sence?

I understand your thinking, but I still believe you should still consider building the Sig Kadet LT-25. If you buy an ARF, when you crash it you will have to either buy a replacement wing or fuselage or replace the whole airframe. When you crash your Sig Kadet LT-25, you will already know how you put it together the first time and you will have your building instructions and plans that you used initially. You will be able to repair the crash damage instead of simply shelling out for a whole new airframe.

You already have an engine you can use that is a perfect fit for the kit. The Sig Kadet LT-25 kit is a very, very easy kit to build and an ideal first building project. The parts are laser-cut and the building is fairly simple.

Trust me when I say this to you: I started out on ARFs two years ago, and my first glow plane was a Nexstar RTF. I wish I had the opportunity to start like you do with the Sig Kadet LT-25. I had to buy a whole new airframe when my Nexstar went down even though it only suffered light damage. I didn't know anything about building so I had to open up the wallet.

If you buy an ARF/RTF airplane, you will be able to start flying with less hassle and maybe sooner than if you build your trainer. Building your trainer, however, will give you a three-year head start in this hobby. If I were you, honest to God, I'd build the Sig Kadet LT-25.

It's down to either the LT-25 or LT-40 kit. Sounds like both planes would be great beginners. One more thing I though about is floats... I visit pops cabin in the summer and would think it would be fun to do a little lake flying in the future. Which plane would be better suited for floats or would they both be equal?

Thanks!

I've seen LT-25s and LT-40s both flown off of floats, they're both terrific float planes.

You need more power to get off water than off of land..go with the LT-25 if your stickin with the .35....I would go ARF if you want to get in the air ...building is fine and you can always build one while your learning but you'll find the ARF's are cheaper in the long run,,by the time you get a kit, 2 rolls of covering, an iron, glue,hinges,engine mount...etc (get the picture?) you will have future building tools but that 1st plane will cost way more than an ARF....Rog

Oh and CA glue is CA glue get it at the dollar store not at the hobby shop where is $4 an oz same as rubber bands..get them from Office Depot for $1.19 not $6 from /Tower....

flyinrog- I don't think they offer a ARF LT-25 kit. I see they do with a LT-40 though. Good to hear they both make good floater planes.