Its nice to have a "windy day" plane or two

BH models J-3 cub 46ARF

The CMP Yak 54 50. The yellow fiberglass one. It is a pretty plane to look at, but its a snap happy monster in the air. I don't think the engineers who designed this model did any testing at all.

Of the planes I have owned, the only one I would discourage anyone from buying is the Aerobird Swift. Admittedly I wasn't ready for it, but it was really tough to keep in the air. I have since built and flown at least a dozen planes, and I have no desire to rebuild that thing.

While I agree with the other thread that said everyone should build at least one kit, I disagree that nobody should ever own an ARF. I have more kits than ARFs, but I think there are some very good ARFs out there, and sometimes you just want a new plane in the middle of the summer and don't want to spend the time building.

I would also disagree with the 'no SPADs' comment. I have had a lot of fun building and flying them. I have mostly drifted back to balsa, I am now building my 5th kit, but SPADs are a lot of fun to build, fly, and experiment with.

I do think that if you fly ONLY spads, then you would be surprised at how much easier it is to fly a balsa plane.

I think this thread is a great idea for pointing out models that are poorly engineered, or marketted to the wrong audience, but I wish it wouldn't turn into an anti-ARF or anti-SPAD thread. There are plenty of those already.

I had one, been there, did that, flew it, perhaps 10 times, had the tee-shirt, ended up using it as a rag to wipe down my Skylark.

On it's last flight, it went up, I made a left turn, it went right, then over and into the ground. It never flew right, way to heavy, and was just not worth the effort I put into it. And, I followed the directions verbatim. Hey, if you like 'em, knock yourself out.

CGr.

When I posted S.P.A.D., I knew.. KNEW.. that it would raise the hackles of the S.P.A.D. junkies. Sorry, but it's a piece of, well, hey, one thing about opinions.. they are supposed to be based on fact and personal experience, which I have both of with that thing.

Hey.. you want some coroplast? I'll give it to you, along with a length of downspout. Come get it. I don't even think it's worth packing it up and sending it out. In fact, I don't know why it's taking up space in my back room. Space that I could use to put something that is flyable.

CGr.

That's OK CGR, your opinion of SPADs is no secret. I thought you might get a kick out of what I like to call my SPAD graveyard. I have three SPADS that I still fly, and they do fly well, but I have had a well documented series of 'planes' that either flew lousy or I just got bored with them and moved on.

Like I said, for a while I did have a lot of fun experimenting with these things, and a lot of other guys have built some really impressive models. I have gone back to building balsa kits for now.

You never know, though, there are a couple of airframes in the graveyard that may end up back in the air.

mclina: I must admit that I've seen some real nice, very nice, SPAD's out there. I'm just not that talented a builder to make something that looks, and may fly.. ?? as good as some say they do. Tongue-in-cheek, I hope you realize. Someone's gotta like 'em, and somebody's gotta not like 'em. I happen to fall in the latter category.

We all have choices, and the theme of this thread is pretty much for us to "speak our mind" without being degrading. Yep, I don't like them, but it's not from a distant view, but from personal experience. I built the Debonaire and one other, I forgot what it was, that got almost done when I realized that I made some poor choices in the build and it made it to the scrap pile.

I'll stick with ARF's and some kits. I'm an engineer, but I ain't that kind of an engineer.. I'll let those in the know do their thing and do what I enjoy.

Nice pile, by the way Sort of looks like my back room, which would probably improve if I tossed in a hand-grenade... [X(]

CGr.

Like MC, I've more kits but I've a couple of ARFs that are treasured. And... sometimes ARFs have something that needs corrected to make them lovable. For example, I've a Hanger 9 PT-19 1.20 that had very poor gear mounting. One main didn't even have plywood false ribs for the hardwood block mount. The mount was simply glued to cut outs in two balsa ribs and of course failed quickly. The other main had light ply false ribs and was better but eventually failed as well. There was nothing but balsa to screw the tail wheel into. With the issues corrected the plane is a favorite.

This sets up the point... that some building or repair skills are valuable. If the PT-19 were cast off after the gear failed, some wonderful flying would have been missed. It is a great flier and capable of wonderful triple tumble lumcevaks and landing glide slopes with flaperons set and nose up with a slight bit of power on, looking like the real thing making a landing. I've gotten more comments from other fliers about the beauty of that planes flight than any other plane I've owned.

So, while I enjoy building a good bit and have built many planes, ARFs can be loved too. The favorite plane in my hanger is the Ultra Stick Lite... another ARF.

On the other hand, the best trainer by far that I've observed and subsequently built for my grandkids is not available in an ARF. IMHO most of the ARF trainers with engines powerful enough to get out of trouble are also too fast and get into trouble because of reduced reaction time. Better in my opinion for a trainer to fly slow on the wing and I've not seen many ARF trainers so designed.

This was taken from Model Sport Aviator (AMA's on-line magazine) review done on the Hobbico Nexstar:


How much slower do you want a trainer to go?

CGr.

I'll stipulate that the Nexstar will fly slow, but a look at the wing loading of 21 oz shows it to be a sport plane and with a .46 motor on it and it will fly fast too so it is both a trainer and sport plane. As a dual purpose airframe, it is a compromise trainer and where is the line between trainer and sport plane on the throttle? Does a beginner always stay in the trainer zone? Here is a loading chart from RC-Castle.com.


Typical Wing Loading
Loading

Type
Glider - 10 oz/sq.ft

Trainers - 15 oz/sq.ft

Sport Planes - 20 oz/sq.ft

Fighters - 25 oz/sq.ft

I will also stipulate that many beginners do handle such a dual purpose air frame and even progress faster and save money in the process by having one plane that serves as both trainer and introductory sport. I'll even commend Hobbico for their honesty, " After basic training, with just a few quick adjustments your NexSTAR ARF becomes a more advanced model capable of greater speeds and maneuverability. It's like getting two planes in one!"

From my observations beginners do not stay in the trainer zone. They often get into trouble because of lack of reaction time because the throttle setting is beyond the trainer zone. I've seen dozens of the combo planes smashed to smithereens after dumb thumbing at throttle settings in the sport zone.

For the sake of a respectful argument I'd suggest that one of the most difficult training candidates is the geezer who decides in retirement years that he wants to get into RC aircraft. His reaction time is not what it once was and this slows the learning curve. What I'm saying is that this gentlemen will likely fair better with a trainer weight loaded aircraft than with that of a sport plane. We all make our arguments based on the perspective from which we come... I'm coming from the perspective of the most likely successful trainer plane for the person with the most difficult learning challenge.

carefull how you talk about geezer's learing to fly in their retirement years. I'm 70 and can fly some of the 3D's. Granted not all of them. I like my big stick, tiger 60, Sea Dancer, Sea Master, DeHavilland Beaver on floats. So all of us are not slow with the thumbs. Just my 2c

CG, the Nexstar is one of the planes I didn't mention because I have spoken to people that love them, I think it is a total hunk of junk and should be pulled off the market. That and those things sold by Horizon with all the stuff you remove as the student lears. Those are my SPADS.

Interesting debate here. First, AA5BY, I'm not quite as old as goirish, but I'm approaching 63. My reaction times are ok, not what they used to be nor are they as bad as they could be. I started RC about, oh, 8 years or so ago. And, I used to compete with handguns and rifles, so my hand-eye coordination is probably better than most.

I trained on the Nexstar and didn't have much trouble with it at all. First of all, my instructor was one of those that taught me that there was a stick called a throttle and that it moved proportionally, and that it was not a switch. So, I learned how to fly the thing as a trainer. I later took off the gizmo's and started to fly it as a sport plane. So, you are right, it is a dual purpose aircraft, and I enjoyed flying it.

One of the most difficult planes I flew was a "true trainer" as you would describe it, and it really tested my abilities to fly the thing after flying pattern planes that flew like they were on rails. But, I didn't know there were such things until I started flying them, so I was pretty much used to flying my trainer/sport aircraft and dealing with their handling and their capabilities, however lacking. I moved up slowly, all the time learning that the throttle was still proportional, and how to fly straight and level, until I moved up into the more precise hardware. But, I went back to the trainer and flew it one day.. learned how much I had "un-lelarned" and had to spend some time learning to fly the trainer again. Odd, but true.

Anyway, Gray Beard.. as you can see, I liked my Nexstar, but, hey, some people liked the Nash Rambler too.. ha.. oops.. but if it's the only thing you know (as a trainer and to a trainee, what else do you have to compare with), well, it's what you have and you learn on it.

I bought a "club trainer" because the club didn't have one. It's and Hanger 9 Alpha ARF. I put it together and put an OS .46 FX I believe it is, but have not yet maidened it. It was a replacement for another trainer that I planted one day last year. Long story, but suffice to say that it was truly pilot error. I got to love taking out the trainer and fly it just to relax and to step back to basics.

Aaaanyway, that's my story, and I'll stick to it!!!

CGr.

I'll have to disagree with the SPAD, Duraplane, and "all Aerobirds/Firebirds". IMO, these are all excellent planes for newbies starting out.

A properly built SPAD or Duraplane will fly pretty well, take a lot of abuse before needing repairs, and can be repaired cheaply and easily. I cut my teeth on SPADs. They were cheap and easy to build/repair, and flew pretty well. My favorite SPAD was a 25 size Derelict. It was hand launched and belly landed. I flew it with a 32SX and a .40LA, and it was a blast to fly. It would go about 60mph with the 32SX, and was easy to glide in for dead stick belly landings every time. A fellow club member got a Duraplane to learn on, and I took him up on the trainer box a few times, it flew fine.

I've flown a Firebird Phantom several times, and it was a great little 3-ch plane for the price (used to be only $59, I think it's up to $89 now). A friend of mine had a older version of the Aerobird, and he had a blast with it. In fact, these two planes are the only planes I've ever seen that flew well with just a cheap brushed motor & NiMH power system.

Last weekebnd at the airfield, me, my H9 Arrow, and my SPAD Stick.

Windy.. too windy to consider the Arrow..

SPADstick loves wind! flew just fine till I over corrected and perched her in a tree! And even that was good because where any Balsa plane would have had damage, the SPAD needs a new prop and she's flight ready..

Yea, dont build a SPAD They are garbage.. Instead, come to a SPAD field near you and watch other s have blast flying when you wouldnt consider starting your engine for the wind..

//SArcasm ended.// Thats a very unfair statement, properly built many SPADs are VERY nice flying aircraft, and Ive yet to see one thats not at least as durable as a traditional Balsa plane. Plus, they are about half the cost or less to put together, (Truthfully wing and airframe can be had for as little as $20, The price of one of the three rolls of monocote to finish a stick built plane. Add engine electronics control rods and landing gear and you have an aircraft that cost you $20 over what the extras you needed to finish a traditional kit cost WITHOUT the kit cost of $50 to $200+)

In contrast, a poorly built Balsa plane can be just as frustrating, and a much more expensive loss when it crashes because you twisted the wing....

Right.



Back to the theme of this thread, if you don't mind.

US Aircore Barnstormer. Especially if it's one of your first planes. I've built balsa planes since I was a kid so the switch to larger RC planes wasn't that large of a step. But the Aircore planes are basically "plastic cardboard" and you fold them together. Leading edges were not straight, and as a result each wing of the biplane wanted to go its own way. Trim that out. On the maiden flight, my instructor had a total flight time of 18 seconds. Its in a box in my garage/hangar. Go with the traditional building methods. I'm not knocking Aircore, just the building method.

CGRetired, I also am approaching 63 in May. And... I'm quick to say that we've some extremely good pilots (much better than me) at our field in their seventies. I'd hoped that my comments didn't sound like I was stereotyping and if they did, none was intended.

Im not getting into the SPAD debate, even though I love spads and thats all that I fly, spads are not for everybody. back to the thread. I would think that the very cheap and porely designed toy like planes are not good at all. the planes that are pushed on people because they want to make a buck. the 69.00 POS that would discourage new guys are definatly a no good plane. Im not into naming brands but there is a bunch of low end junk out there. I would rather see a new guy buy a nice trainer and setup and really enjoy it than have a horible time with a pile of junk. there are some great planes, nitro and elect that would serve that purpose. Also any plane that the Pilot isnt ready for, should be avoided. Everybody knows that we all want to fly the P-51, well there are alot of guys who have no business flying that plane .02

AA5BY, none taken as long as you are sure to include yourself in that "geezer" category (as well as me, goirish, and a few others.. )

SPADs - CG is right!

The fact that so many people have bad luck with the Italian Bomber makes me want to get one!!

We're beginning to outnumber them!!! (sorry.. I lost my head). [X(]

CGr.

-pkh-, what is the SPAD with the yellow wing and red stripes? And what engine do you have on it. That looks cool, and that's coming from a 56 y/o geezer.

Oh I see now. It's a Derelict with a modified wing and tail with a OS 32SX. Yeah, that should haul *****. I like it. Does it have Rudder Servo? Or is it just Ail, Elevator, throttle?

Yes, I was thinking about the Cantz bomber as well. From the videos, it's probably the most challenging and difficult plane on the market to set up and fly properly. Only the very best, brightest, and most experienced need to apply here!

NorfolkSouthern