Hey guys whats up? I was just wondering why the aircore planes arent recommended more for novice pilots wanting to learn to fly. I learned on the aircore trainer, moved to an astro hog, and after a 10 year absence from the sport currently fly an aircore colt to get my feet wet again. They are easy to build, tough as nails, and cheap. Its amazing the abuse they can take.

I guess it's due to the fact that many people like shinny mono or ultracote planes that say 3D or ultimate on the plane designation, I liked the aircore philosphy, it was simple, buld and almost indistrucable airplane and make everything glue together easy by floding it into shape and then slap a power cartridge in and off you go, but right now, they only offer the trainer from what I can find.

You posted this exact same topic, with the exact same title, and the exact same question, back in March. Did you not like the answer you got back in March, or do you have an interest in promoting these planes?


http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_72...tm.htm#7262108

Well mclina thank u for your pointless and useless response. Yes I have a interest in promoting these planes. Do u have a problem with that? I think the best thing for a beginner is having a plane that when he/she takes off they know if they make one minor mistake, or failure that there plane wont be turned into scrap pile. mclina I'm just trying to help the beginners out and was curious thats all. Calm down little fella it will be ok. As for everyone else I appreciate your opinion and input. Later guys.

I, for one, wish they would bring back the Aircore L-4 Cub they produced in military colors. From a slight distance, it looked very good. I had one, learned to fly on it.

Even up close, it looked pretty good. If anyone out there in internet land has one, let me know, we might make a deal!

Billrad

Well, I cruzed through the last posting on this subjuct and I laughed but there were alot of good and bad things to say about the aircore planes, the cloraplast material is available in many of the hobbyshops down here and in sign vendors or old gas station promotional signs. The 1 plane I think as a flying brick would be a battered duraplane, I had known 1 guy who had one and it was affectionality known as the "flying brick" it seemed to wiegh more and more with every crash and the only thing he could do was add bigger motors to compensate for the repair wieght. All in all they're not bad but not perfect either, but then again what plane is perfect, they all have vices to thier design, build or material. I'm more than guilty of changing something because it wasn't the best material or design for the task at hand, so I give aircore the thumbs up for being original in kit production and theory, it sure made people think about alternative materials to build planes out of, heck, if one of the most common production planes uses PCV drain pipe as a fuselage(Duraplane) and still cost 60 bucks, then I give air core credit for using somethin different.

I was looking for the cub before I bought my colt. I dont know why they discontinued most of the models they built. I never new they made a military cub. I've looked everywhere for some of there older models but I cant find them anywhere. Ya I know what u mean by being heavy. I have an os 70 surpass in mine and it took alot of wieght in the tail to get it to balance. But it still does fly good.

I remember the colt the trainer, the nighthawk and the cub they made, it seems that popularity seemed to favor the duraplanes and the Balsa ARFS. Yes they wiegh more and yes there are better flying planes out there but you can doink the heck out of a aircore and still have a plane, unlike a balsa trainer. I still love the balsa trainers over the cloraplast aircores but they are durable.

Ya I think they also made a bipe and a f-16. One thing that is nice about them is if u have to work on your hardware u just pull out the power cartridge. Very handy. I've also been wondering what a good next plane would be. I asked in another post but I didnt get many responses. Please dont get mad at me mclina for posting the same subject twice. He is kinda grumpy that way. lol. Anyways I've been looking at the fourstar 120 and the h9 pulse xt. What do u guys think?

I apologize. I didn't mean to be the post police. I had just recently come across your original thread in a search, so it was fresh in my mind.

I have built and flown a lot of coroplast planes, and I think they are a lot of fun. I think one reason that the Aircore planes are not so popular, is that it is so easy to build a SPAD from free plans on the internet.

On those same lines, I recently purchaced a used DuraPlane trainer 40. Complete less the transmitter... for $25. I am an instructor at my club. My current student has a Hanger 9 Arrow and this last weekend it developed an aileron flutter. Common with the Arrow. I grounded his plane untill modification/repairs could be made. I pulled my Duraplane out of the car and put him up on it for the rest of the day. By no means does the Duraplane fly anywhere near as well as his Arrow but he still got to fly and actuall performed his first take off and landing with the DuraPlane. So, will these "flying bricks" work? Yes, by all means they will do the job.

The duraplane is a decent flying aircraft, it just tends to get heavy after repeated repairs to the foam wing and pvc tube, it still suprises me that something that can be so cheap to manufacture still cost 60 bucks, I've seen guys show up with almost identically built planes from scratch and it only cost them 30 bucks to build.

I posted on the previous aircore thread that it was more important to have a trainer that flies well instead of a trainer that crashes well.

I can't really say I've had a complete change of heart regarding this topic, but we've just completed another really, really windy flying season here in Nebraska. As tough as the weather has been for comfortably training new pilots, I can see where having a couple of SPAD, Duraplane, or Aircore trainers available during less-than-ideal training conditions might be a good idea.

The added weight and wingloading of these planes would be a virtue rather than a vice during windy training nights out at the club. I have no doubt that a Tower Trainer .40 MkII ARF would be a much better trainer than a Duraplane or Aircore trainer under most flying conditions. When training night comes around and we're greeted with 20 to 25 mph winds, however, a flying brick would come in handy.

At the risk of being stoned, I'd just like to point out that the duraplane, in it's own right is different than the aircore series of planes.

The aircore planes are all "aircore" or coroplast. They were the Colt, the barnstomer bipe, two versions of the cub, the trainer, an F-16, and corostar, and nighthawk that had a bomb drop, etc. All were pre colored, no covering required.

The duraplane is a foam wing, pvc fuselage design.

As for the cubs, I can tell you that if you used a ball bearing 46 -51 two stroke, they flew pretty well. I had the L4. My friend still flies a colt with an OS LA 46.

AWW just SPAD it! may or may not be cheaper I dunno, but it sure is fun!

SPAD, Aircore, and Duraplane all = heavier than balsa, hence my mentioning the three of them together.

I've been teaching RC since 95. I had one season where I got to switch back and forth between my favorite trainer the LT40 and a guy with the Aircore trainer. The aircore trainer needed to be a model that you could crash and survive. It was too heavy and too fast. The AVERAGE novice did not have the reaction time to keep up with it.

I've had two Aircore F-16s, their one design that you could NOT pull the "power package" out, but they are fun knock around sport planes. I've replace the last one with a Sky Raider II arf as my knocker of choice.

And for the totaly newbie to modeling, unless you're a SPAD freak, you have to learn building (some of them awkward) techniques that you'll never use again.

MTC YMMV
T