i wanted to get a duraplane trainer and i was wonderiong if it was as good as any other trainer other than looks and if it is the same to fly.... and is it easier than others? or the same becuase i dont want to to have a problem upgrading myself and having to pay for another instructor.
please help and give me ur input thanks and please tell me ur opinion about this plane and if it is good as a trainer or not?
thanks,
Paul

The duraplanes are typically heavier than similar sized wood trainers, so they can actually be harder to fly. They will not fly as slowly as some wood trainers. However, they are sturdy and can be readily repaired. I favor the lighter planes in the .40 size range. There are many good selections in kit and ARF form.

anyone else ?and do u guys recommend any trainers that arnt to pricey??

I have enjoyed learning on a duraplane simple design and it can be set-up for more fun flying(durastik)I learned on a duraplane--lets face it if your teaching yourself to fly your going to crash--so why spend time and money on those balsa kits--buy today fly today and probably crash today--

do u have aol instant messanger so i can ask u some questions about the plane and understand ur opinion about it and everyone else keep ur imputs coming

IMHO the BEST option for a durable, cheap plane is a SPAD.
check out the SPAD forum here on RCU and visit www.spadtothebone.com

Woodsy,
You and your Spads. Have you ever flown anything else?

Paul,
What do you mean PAY for ANOTHER instructor?? Is someone charging you to learn??!! If so, go somewhere else. I know of at least 10 clubs in this area, and NO ONE charges to train the new guys.
Dennis-

I smashed mine a zillion times and it is still flying!

The worst crash was full speed to a table. The only thing that was broken was the split carburettor.

Later on I converted the landing gear to a tail dragger.

The most important feature of a learning tool is that it will survive long enough for you to learn.

--kaboomski;

Yep, i've flown other peoples balsa and foam planes and they fly great, i own only 1 balsa plane which is a trainer and i've never flown it.

IMO why would i spend more $$ on a plane that flys the same as a $10 SPAD and takes me 10 times longer to build?

i'm moving more in to foam and brown paper for "scale" type planes because of the cost and ease of shaping.

Gee, I have no idea.

The really cool part of the previous post is that you can go through 100 of the ones on the right for a fraction of the cost (for all 100!) of the one on the left...so that when you fly the one on the left, you will have the reflexes, confidence and ability to do it. Some of the funfly guys are learning this quick...hone your skills and train your brain with a cheapo Spad that bounces...then rock the world with your dream plane...the same philosophy is catching on quick in earning your wings with a Spad before putting a lot of time, money and effort into the beauty you've always dreamed of. I did it backwards though...and spent 20 years the other way...now my dream planes are Spads Thanks Minn...a good point made with a pic is worth a thousand words. I've seen too many crashes from pilots trying to fly the plane they always wanted...before they had the confidance, experience and abilities to do it.

I concur, SPAD is your best bet for a beginner airplane. No need to shy away from Balsa when you learn how to fly.

Come On!!! Be fair here! you want to compare a scale wood plane with a SPAD Fun Fly! Get with the program.... You can not compare apples and oranges!!! Take a look at some scale SPADs if you want to post comparison pictures! Spad are great for beginners who don't want to spend $300 in wood learning to fly! One of the guys I fly with flies a SPAD trainer. It has gone in nose first and hit 2 trees! it has cartwheeled down the paved runway, and hit a fence in flight! The worst of the damage was a broken engine mount! I challenge any wood plane to do that!

Don't get me wrong! I fly wood. But I also fly SPAD! They are fun to build and fun to fly! No worries... And the scale spads look just as good as the wood ones!!! Please look at the pics.... They speak for them selves!

Hijack--

In addition to Minn's picture worth a thousand words, a Video is worth a million words. Would you rather do this with the plane on the left and be comfortable enough to do it close to the groud a year or more from now...or practice with a $7 airplane (Profile variation of the plane on the right) and give this a shot tomorrow?

http://www.riversedgerc.com/communit...p=getit&lid=37

Disclaimer: I got the link to this video from the funfly forum and am using it as an example of Spad flight capibilities...not promoting catching your airplane out of the air

Hijack off--

It's more like comparing apples to TURDS (in my opinion, anyway)! I've flown a few spads and didn't care much for any of them.

Rock on! Now thats what it all about! I Love acronyms and am always looking for new names for planes...that one will be added to my list.
Tough Ugly Resilient Delight

Getting back to the Dura-Plane. It's heavy. It lands hot. But it flies and gets the job done, and comes back for more. I've seen an awefull lot of new pilots show up at the field with an awefull lot of different types of trainers over the last 26 years. I've also seen an awefull lot of wreckage piles and guys never coming back. I wish I would have kept records. Because the percentage of guys sticking with it and having a ball and making it to solo and beyond seems to be higher with the Dura-plane/Aircore/Sturdy Birdy/Armidillo type crowd. I'm talking percentage, NOT total numbers. I see more Avistars, Alpha and Tiger trainers than anything (besides Spads) ...but every now and then a toughy shows up. These seem to be the guys that want to fly, screw what it looks like, lets get airborn NOW and get it figured out yesterday pilots. It's also incredable how much quicker the learning curve is when a pilot with the right aptitude begins with a toughy.

Here we go again

SPAD ofers a valid alternative to other types of planes and some people on the forum cant get past there tunnel vision.

SPAD can be ugly but so can other planes.
SPAD can fly like crap but so can other planes
SPAD can be expencive oops no it cant.
Balsa planes can look scale so can SPAD

SPAD is a design idea NOT a way of making ugly poor flying planes, hell i can make an ugly poor flying plane from anything.

Ooooh - now that's constructive!!! I can see how much your post has helped paul1253264 with his question!!!!

Now - back to the original question.

I agree with Dean - it is not so much what a pilot starts out with - but how much passion he has! If a person is bound and determined to learn to fly R/C - it won't matter what he is flying - he will get it done. I have trained 20+ people to fly R/C - and only a handful have continued - because they only did it out of curiosity more than anything. The guys that were bound and determined to learn to fly would have used a 2 x 4 if they thought they could learn to fly it! I have used SPAD's for training since its inception - and they work just fine to learn to fly on - turd or not!!!!!! The number one thing you can do paul1253264 - is to find an instructor and STICK WITH IT!!! Good luck!

do any of u guys have spads u can sell me for cheap?

http://www.spadtothebone.com/misc/ARF.html

i have not flown any other planes, but my instructor took up my spad debonair( which is typical spad trainer) and said it flew better than most balsa trainers he flew. with a .46 evolution engine it was a screamer. a great first plane. easy to build and easier to fly. spad rule. but i will have balsa planes too.

To scratch build that hypothetical SPAD for $10 you need to have the knowledge, skill, experience and tools to do so. The tools and techniques are different from more conventional planes. For a dedicated (or converted) SPADder this is no problem, but for a newbie, locating and acquiring all of the materials and tools could be more hassle than its worth.

SPAD trainer kits can be had, but their cost is no less than that of a conventional trainer. e.g. the Kombat 40 trainer is $90-

The Duraplane or Sturdy Birdy may also be an option but you will spend more time crashing than flying. My Sturdy Birdy flies a LOT faster than my plywood boxes and more often than not you'd still need to take it home to make repairs. Speaking of which, I still haven't found any of that 2 1/2 drainpipe thats supposed to be so easy to get hold of.

On the other hand, if you can find a slow flying, stable aircraft that is reasonably priced and can be easily put together correctly by a beginner then go for it, it doesn't matter what its made of.

I doubt though, that a SPAD can be made light enough to fill that criteria. The materials are just too dense. e.g. a yardstick ain't exactly a lightweight wing spar...

The current crop of .40 sized plywood boxes IMO aren't very good trainers either, they are too heavily built for their size to be slow stable performers.

Probably the best 'true' primary trainers are the vintage style aircraft, some of these are now available as ARF's but not necessarily marketed as trainers. These may look like a bag of sticks but are tougher than they look.

My latest trainer, an LT-40 ARF seems to be the exception to the rule. It is the same size as my old .60 sized trainer but is built lighter than yer average ARF thus making it suitable for a .40. I'm looking forward to seeing how this flies....

First, let me say that I think Spads are wonderful. And anything that is nearly indestructible is a fabulous way for a beginner to start out.

I was only replying to the comment "why would i spend more $$ on a plane that flys the same as a $10 SPAD"

Something you guys have to remember is that everyone has their own opinion. Personally, I wouldn't drive a Cadillac, I would rather drive a smaller, more maneuverable car. But I'm not going to tell someone "Don't buy a Cadillac, You can get a Ugo for $10!"

Some people will pay millions of dollars to hang a nice piece of art on their wall. Next time you see one, ask them why they got it instead of a copy of "Dogs Playing Poker" for $10?

BTW: With tongue planted firmly in cheek, I WAS comparing apples to oranges. Here's Apples to Apples

A person picks up a piece of balsa and say wow, how light. A person pics up the same sized piece of coroplast and says wow...it's heavier than balsa...therefore, anything built out of it will be heavier than the same thing built from balsa. Wrong. In a Spad, there are no ribs, webs, covering, supports, ply doublers...etc. The ugliest of Spads...the Big Ugly, has a wing loading of less than 14 oz/sq. ft. It's so ugly the ground repells it...but it works because it flies better and lighter than any of my Falcons or Kadet did. The CoroSpit and Corostang were modeled as 1/12 scale airplane deminsions and come out LIGHTER than their balsa or foam counterparts. The Debby rivals the wing loading of the Avistars depending on engine and landing gear used, and the Spadet rivals the wingloading of the LT-40. I will admit that over the last 4 years, the square gutterpipe has become hard to locate...I just found out last week that it doesn't meet newer housing codes in many areas...and is being phased out in favor of the 2 x 3 inch stuff that every LOWES in the universe carries....so...it looks like I'm going to have to build one out of that stuff. Many have done it already and it works fine...oh yeah...and it's lighter than the square stuff.

DANG it MinnFlier,

How many times do they have to tell you??????
You ARE NOT allowed to have an opinion that does not praise the almighty spad!!
Just attempt to share your enjoment of building with a beginner and theyll be on you like stink on #$@%.