I've pretty much decided that my first Glow plane will be the Sig Kadet LT40. I've flown electrics for about a year now but I want to get into bigger planes and the economics seem to favor glow vs. electric.

Anyway, I've done some research and it seems like th LT40 is a great trainer to start on. My question is about the quality of the ARF vs. building from a kit. I've built stick and tissue in the past and I'm about to cover my first using iron-on covering. I'd prefer the ARF but I want to make sure the quality of the construction is good. I've heard stories (not necessarily about the LT40) about poor joints and sub-standard covering jobs. I'm a relatively new builder so building the LT40 from a kit would be a challenge but not impossible.

I'm looking for opinions on what some of you have done and what your experiences have been. I know that if I build, I'll be following RC Ken's excellent build thread, but as I said, I'm leaning toward the ARF right now.

Thanks,
Bob

The LT 40 is a great first plane. Kit verse ARF, that is a matter of choice. I would prefer a kit as I would then know how it was built and could trust it. There are some horror stories out the about ARF's and I have been a part of a few of them, however Sig does not usually appear in the horror story department. I do however always refer to a statement that I heard a while back, you never seem to hear any stories about old ARF's, just old kit's. Good Luck, Dave

That's a good point. I have 2 sons, the youngest being 3, and I can see them learning on this, and who knows, perhaps training their kids on it!!

If you enjoy building, Sig kits are among the best, especially for beginning builders. You will find it a lot easier to build your LT-40 than a stick and tissue kit. I thought that stick and tissue kits would be good practice for building my Four Star - I think it was actually the other way around.

If you aren't in a hurry to get in the air, and you aren't overly concerned about the price, then you can't do any better than the LT-40 kit. There are plenty of build threads here (especially RCKen's) that will give you all the help you need. Read through them a couple of times and decide which improvements you want to make before you start. If you start with the attitude that you are building it so that your grandkids will fly it, then I'm sure you will do a great job.

Good luck.

Please let us know how you make out whatever you choose. I am set on the LT-40 for my very first plane but it looks like it'll be a while before I can afford the whole package.

As David said above, the choice is yours. But I do agree that building it yourself will give you plane more likely to last a longer time. If you're interested in what goes into building the LT-40 trainer I have done a build thread that will take you through the entire build process. Take a look at it to get some ideas of what is involved.

[link=http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_3439708/tm.htm]Pay It Forward build thread!! LT-40 build.[/link]

Ken

Hi Ken,

Actually, your build thread is what pushed me in the direction of the LT40. Also, I have heard so many good things about this trainer and I had an opportunity to see one close-up at our club's open house a few weeks ago. Just one question though. Do I really need to read through the instructions TWICE??[:@] (just kidding, twice it is!)

You cannot make a better choice for a trainer than an LT-40. Sig was an early leader in setting industry standards for quality build manuals also. Build manuals and in the case of arfs assembly manuals are arguably the most expensive thing that goes in the box of any new kit or arf if its up to modern standards. Also consider the LT-40 or the Senior Kaydet are simply the best first airplanes for float flying if you should so choose.

John

Bob,

Either in kit or ARF form, the LT-40 is hard to beat. I built the kit with my son and thoroughly enjoyed it. Yes, it does take additional time compared to assembling an ARF but, if you follow Sig's excellent instructions and RCKen's excellent build thread, you can't go wrong.

One more advantage to building from the kit - it won't necessarily look like everyone else's LT-40 ARF at the field.

Please review the photo/thread I put up a few years ago documenting my son and I soloing on our LT-40. I still cherish that day...

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_3477988/tm.htm

Nice looking LT40. I like the color scheme. It's great to get your son involved. My oldest is 10 and he and I started flying last year. He's helping me build too but so far I've limited his activity to smoothing out the ribs with sandpaper.

I'm starting to lean toward the kit after all of the encouraging posts. I think I'll wait to finish the one that's on my board now though, that way I'll have a better idea of my covering skills (or lack thereof!!).

Thanks for all of the posts!

As mentioned, you never see very many old ARFs even in the high dollar giant planes. I'm A kit and plans guy myself but when it comes to trainers the ARFs are just too easy for me. If you get two people to solo on A trainer it has more then served it's purpose in life.
My last one was given to me and really old. I can't even say if it was an ARF or not it had been repaired so many times plus had things changed? I got my last two students trained on it and they were both flying it even after there solo. Then one day there was A little cross wind and A brain fart.
Now I'm looking at the LT 40 ARF because of A time thing. I think maybe an ARF right now with A kit on the bench for the back up.
Just thinking ahead.

Do you know of any similar threads on building the LT-40 ARF? Thanks.

I'm trying to get the time to do an ARF assembly video for our (Minnflyer and myself) website, [link=http://www.gettingairborne.com]www.gettingairborne.com[/link]

Ken

Build the kit.
I have recently built a 4 star for myself and have just finished a LT 25 for my son. The trainer took me 3 weeks to build and cover and it came out looking great. SIG kits are really easy to build, excellent instructions and good quality, pre cut wood which fits together like a puzzle.