|
BALSA is better than SPAD ?
Some say Balsa is better than SPAD to train on. Is this because there are Balsa loyalist same as OS loyalists. I am just wanting to know if training with a SPAD is the same as BALSA and what model of SPAD is best to train on.
|
RE: BALSA is better than SPAD ?
Makes no deferance to the actual "learning" only to the wallet.
|
RE: BALSA is better than SPAD ?
What I can say is, how a plane flies depends on it's design, dimensions, and weight. There is nothing magical about balsa, just as there is nothing magical about plastic. A good trainer has certain characteristics. The dihedral flat wing, tricycle gear, a wingloading in the neighborhood of 18 oz./sq. ft. give or take. The Spad trainer of choice is the Debonair. It is a good trainer. I'm not saying it's any better than the popular trainer ARF's and kits like Kadets and so forth, but however there are many folks out there who have flown them that will tell you they are no worse as well. The real selling point? Cheap, durable, easy to build. Looks? No, but trainers are not supposed to be good looking anyway. If looks are important to you, you could always go with the extra work and build a Spadet, looks like the balsa trainers. Now here's the rub...building Spads can be challenging to an absolute beginner who has no knowledge of clevises and control arms and radio installation and engine installation and so forth. Spad construction assumes a little familiarity with these things. Trainer ARFS include all this harware and hold your hand through the process. So a beginner starting out with Spad is a great thing...but you really need someone to help you build it as well as fly it that first time IMHO, unless you do a lot of research and are pretty handy to begin with, or have flown and destroyed your balsa trainer.
|
RE: BALSA is better than SPAD ?
1 Attachment(s)
I have a spad trainer 60" wing span 44" fuse. It flies just as good as my PT 40 did. the only difference between the two I can think of is the weight (the balsa plane will weigh about a pound less) The good thing with a spad is it can take a lot of abuse (hard landings cartwheels, endovers) just go pick it up brush it off do a radio check and go fly it again. You can't do that kind of abuse with a balsa plane. I can't say if one's better than the other. They each have their own benefits.
|
RE: BALSA is better than SPAD ?
Hope this doesn't turn into another one of "those" threads. :eek:
I've never owned or flown a SPAD, never even seen one fly, but I personally just don't like the looks of a corrugated plastic plane. There are many people that are fanatical about them though, and they do have a couple of advantages over a standard trainer; primarily they're inexpensive and relatively durable. As FrankC29 mentioned, a new guy just starting out IS likely to have trouble building a plane from scratch, even a SPAD. And as far as I can tell, it's only going to save you about $60, the difference in cost between the materials to build a SPAD ($20 to $30), and the cost of a trainer ARF (I see the Tower Trainer ARF on sale pretty frequently for $79). But if money is really tight.... I don't think durability is a real issue either, IF you're going to have an instructor. In my eight years in this hobby I've never seen a trainer crash while on a buddy box, and if your instructor doesn't let you solo too soon, there's no reason a balsa trainer won't last for years. Dennis- |
RE: BALSA is better than SPAD ?
My honest take on this is that you should build your first trainer. The reason is that when you advance more you'll need the skills you learn from previous building experience. A trainer is tolerant of building errors, but a more advanced plane isn't.
You'll get to the point where you can tell the difference between a straight plane and one that isn't. If you wait to build until you get to the point where you're flying these kinds of planes, then you'll be behind the curve. Also, even if you fly nothing but ARF's, it still helps to know how to build a plane for times when you need to make repairs. - Paul |
RE: BALSA is better than SPAD ?
ORIGINAL: DBCherry I don't think durability is a real issue either, IF you're going to have an instructor. In my eight years in this hobby I've never seen a trainer crash while on a buddy box, and if your instructor doesn't let you solo too soon, there's no reason a balsa trainer won't last for years. |
RE: BALSA is better than SPAD ?
I have to disagree. IMHO balsa is better than spad at least for learning. I have flown some spads, and they are a blast, but they often have a higher wing loading which is not the best for learning. Also, I think that many new fliers are taken off the buddy cord way to early.
|
RE: BALSA is better than SPAD ?
Mike in DC said :
I totally disagree. I see at the field every day guys destroying trainers in slight crashes that with a Spad you'd be flying again in 10 minutes... I don't see students (who have had adequate instruction) destroying a lot of trainers. I think that's more of an issue for the instructors to take up, I don't see it as a cause to switch to SPAD. As far as a plane built for instruction, I have formed the opinion that balsa trainers are lighter and handle better than SPAD. Just my opinion, Dave Olson |
RE: BALSA is better than SPAD ?
Let's no go here, AGAIN! Both balsa and SPADs fly well, so let go fly! (It beats the heck out of arguing);)
|
RE: BALSA is better than SPAD ?
I don't think it makes a whole lot of difference either. Learn on what you want and have fun doing it. If it gets broken, fix it. Who cares what it is made of. I am not going to change from one to the other just because someone else doesn't like what I have. Thats their problem
|
RE: BALSA is better than SPAD ?
lol...its back again...unbelieveable.
[hr] I agree with Woodsy, there is no better....even between 2 wooden ARF's....they are pretty much equivalent. The SPAD will cost less, is more durable, can handle more crashes, is more easily repairable with less time required to do a repair, will give you more confidence, can be built quicker in many cases unless you have a RTF, will give your instructor more comfort, will provide more instructors that will be willing to step up to the plate to help you, will keep you from falling in love with your plane to the point where you are afraid to fly, and will have you solo'ing in less time.... |
RE: BALSA is better than SPAD ?
My trainer was hand built, silked and doped. I loved it, soloed in 2-3 weeks and other than the first flight I was never afraid to fly it.
|
RE: BALSA is better than SPAD ?
will keep you from falling in love with your plane to the point where you are afraid to fly
[hr] Not afraid to fly it....1 foot off the runway at full throttle....upside down. |
RE: BALSA is better than SPAD ?
At our field we have yet to lose a trainer since starting to use a buddy box. Once off the buddy box (which is up to the individual pilot to decide when they are comfortable) we do see a few mishaps but they are typically fixable and the pilot is back out flying again in the next few days.
Don't mislead the beginners following this thread into thinking that just because a plane is made of balsa it will be completely destroyed the first second it meets the ground in an incorrect manner. Often it is just the case of re-gluing a firewall and bending the landing gear back into shape. We have more than one pilot at our field who have planted their balsa trainers more than a couple of times and just keep patching them up and coming back for more while there are others that haven't crashed or crashed bad enough to cause any significant damage - some people simply learn faster than others. Would they be back in the air faster if they were flying a SPAD? Probably yes... But you still have to take into account what direction the individual wants to go in once they have learned to fly. SPAD building uses techniques that are very different from building a balsa plane so unless they want to stick with SPADs at least for a while they may be missing some good building experience that can help them later on if they want to have a plane that looks more realistic. Another thing to consider is most manufacturers sell the individual parts for their balsa trainers (kits as well as ARFs) so if you do, for instance, manage to completely destroy the fuselage and the wing is easily fixable, you can get a new fuselage and be back flying without having to shell out the cost of a completely new plane. Personally, I think either route is perfectly fine. We should really be asking questions about what type of flying the individual wants to get into before suggesting a route to take. So with that said... reapr is there an interest you have at this point that you would like to pursue? Do you simply want to learn to fly and enjoy it as something fun to do without much caring for the !QUOT!building!QUOT! side of the hobby? Or does looking at a scale plane at the field really grab your attention and make you want to learn more? Give us some more insight into where you think you would like to go and you will likely get some better answers from the vast pool of knowledge available to you here. |
RE: BALSA is better than SPAD ?
ORIGINAL: 2MuchThrow will keep you from falling in love with your plane to the point where you are afraid to fly [hr] Not afraid to fly it....1 foot off the runway at full throttle....upside down. No fear. :D |
RE: BALSA is better than SPAD ?
The material the aircraft is made of has little to do with how it flys...
How the material is used to make the plane will determine if the aiplane is excessively heavy. THAT makes a difference in how it flys. I can take balsa an build a .40 size trainer style airplane(same dimensions at a PT-40) that is so heavy it won't get off the ground with less than a RJL .61... (but I wouldn't want to waste the wood:eek:) I can take Coroplast abd build a plane with the same dimensions that weighs less than any ARF model you could buy... and it would fly just fine with a .25. (one of my planned projects for this year... A light coroplast version of the "TameCat") There really should be no argument over which is better... Balsa has some advantages in some areas... Coro has advantages in others. |
RE: BALSA is better than SPAD ?
Darn it, this is how wars start...
SPAD guys love plastic planes BALSA guys love wood planes Who cares, go out and have fun with whatever you want to, just have someone with experience help out "just in case". As far as indestructible goes... Check out the Southern X2 [link=http://www.funplanes.com]www.funplanes.com[/link] and look at the videos. Ken |
RE: BALSA is better than SPAD ?
The good thing is that Balsa guys are more attractive to the opposite sex, so they are more likely to be naturally selected to continue evolving, where SPAD guys will be extinct in probably about 100 years or less. :D
|
RE: BALSA is better than SPAD ?
Deja Vu....
Reapr: Your question is a legitimate one. It seems that any non-balsa model is called a SPAD by some... if this is so, then my PL Products 2M Excellence and 35% Carden are a SPADs because they use foam cores... shudder the thought. What I consider a SPAD is basically what Tattoo shows on his web page. Typically a "pipe" plane with coreplast. Often the pipe is left off and the entire plane is coreplast. The planes on Tattoos web site are some of the nicest SPADs I've ever seen. Can't remember the address of Tattoo's site, but I'm sure he will chime in. Regardless of what the plane is made of, you should use a trainer to learn how to fly. I actually had two trainers when I started RC. A great planes PT40 kit and a Duraplane trainer. I suppose the duraplane could be considered an ancestor to a modern day SPAD. I started with the Duraplane mainly becasue it was quick. I first started RC in July and I didn't want to wait a month to finish my kit. The Duraplane flew fine... in fact I'd say it flew great... but please read on. I finished the PT40 balsa trainer in August of that yaer and flew it. It too flew great. I could tell some diffs between the two, but as far as I was concerned at the time, both flew well.... but please read on. That was back in 1998. Today I fly 35% IMAC planes, 2M pattern ships, helis, etc. Today I CAN tell a marked diff between the Duraplane and Balsa trainer. Granted, modern day SPADs have advanced some over a 1998's era duraplane, but I have flow modern day SPADs. I have helped many learn how to fly, on everything from balsa to SPADs. In general, the SPADs, from my personal experience, seem to fall short of the performance available from planes built from other materials. A well designed SPAD may out fly a balsa plane, but it probably won't outfly a well designed balsa plane... But.... Does better aerodynamics matter for training? More specifically, is the performance diff between a typically balsa trainer and a typically coreplast trainer significant enough to warrant using one over the other for training purposes? Maybe, but it is NOT critical since SPADs have shoen they can fly well and as material technology improves, SPADS will continue to fly better. I have a hard time saying get one over the other because I learned with both a SPAD and balsa and either would work fine. However, knowing what I know now, I lean toward getting a traditional kit, becasue it teaches basic building techniques, proper plane setup, etc. In some respects I had the best of both worlds when learning to fly... I built a traditional kit but I was also in the air quick with a SPAD. Oh for the record, I beat the snot out of my SPAD and busted it many times... of course it flew again after some duct tape repairs, etc. I NEVER broke my balsa trainer, and I flew it as much if not more than the SPAD. I think that speaks volumes about how when a pilot loses the fear factor, they become dangerous. Before I'm attacked, let me sat that there are many safe SPAD pilots and many dangerous balsa pilots. But, if you do decide on a SPAD, don't consider the planes inherent durability a open license to terrorize other pilots. Cheers |
RE: BALSA is better than SPAD ?
ORIGINAL: JohnW However, knowing what I know now, I lean toward getting a traditional kit, becasue it teaches basic building techniques, proper plane setup, etc. In some respects I had the best of both worlds when learning to fly... I built a traditional kit but I was also in the air quick with a SPAD. If your beginner, what ever you do....do not build a traditional kit. Choose a balsa ARF... If you build a traditional kit, you will fall in love with your plane, it will take you 5X longer to learn to fly than the guy with the ARF and about 10X longer than the guy with the SPAD. After you learn to fly, than learn to build. Make your second plane a scale warbird to get that out of your system. |
RE: BALSA is better than SPAD ?
ORIGINAL: CafeenMan You should build your first trainer. The reason is that when you advance more you'll need the skills you learn from previous building experience. A trainer is tolerant of building errors, but a more advanced plane isn't. You'll get to the point where you can tell the difference between a straight plane and one that isn't. If you wait to build until you get to the point where you're flying these kinds of planes, then you'll be behind the curve. Also, even if you fly nothing but ARF's, it still helps to know how to build a plane for times when you need to make repairs. - Paul Good advice is to build your first trainer. Yes, you will have more of yourself invested in it. No pain, no gain. It will not take you any longer to learn to fly one that you build or one that you buy ready-to-fly unless you count building time. Millions of people learned to fly with planes they built so anyone who tries to tell you that you can't do it or makes other discouraging remarks about it should be ignored. If you learn to build properly you will actually enjoy building as many of us have done. I can tell you for a fact that the guys who build their first plane and see it fly for the first time get a lot more satisfaction from it than the guys who buy ready-built airplanes. |
RE: BALSA is better than SPAD ?
I built all of my (first 3 planes) that I used to fly on before sims, buddy cords, arfs, spads, or monokote even existed
Don't do it...your wasting money, time, and effort. Now that those things exist----use them. Why do they exist because they work!! ....ignore the old fooggies who think they know it all. Use a sim as much as you can, use a buddy cord with an instructor, build an arf or buy/build a spad, better yet, buy a used plane that someone else doesn't want anymore on the cheap. Eventually the old fooggies will all die off and we won't have to listen to them anymore. |
RE: BALSA is better than SPAD ?
ORIGINAL: 2MuchThrow Eventually the old fooggies will all die off and we won't have to listen to them anymore. |
RE: BALSA is better than SPAD ?
Here is my reply to a thread very much like this one, last year.
The case for beginning with a in reply to hksmr2rbo) Report This Post | (Post No. 20) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is quite possibly the number one question about Spads. Can someone get into this hobby by starting with a Spad? The answer is yes. However, this is not a clear cut answer and this has sparked some debate and lengthy conversations in this topic. Very often a beginner to the hobby hears about Spads, and the fact that you can build a plane for less than $10. It sounds awesome, but I would like to make a few things very clear. First of all, if you build a Spad, the end result is an airplane that is very tough. You also end up with an airplane of comparible wing loading and flight performance to many "conventional" trainers. But there are some things that a potential Spad builder, especially beginner, needs to be aware of. I can tell you that there are several companies that sell Spad ARF's...but for the sake of explaining the cheapest way to go, I will stick with building your own. First of all, it is not a kit. Spads are scratchbuilt by you. Spad is plans and ideas from spadtothebone.com">http://www.spadtothebone.com It is up to you to find the materials, and build your plane. In some areas of the country, some of the materials can be hard to find such as 2mm coroplast and square gutterpipe. No problem though because they can be mail ordered. Plenty of links for that on the hints and tips pages. Second...You cannot expect to shell out less than $10 and have a flyable airplane if you are starting from nothing and just getting into the hobby. You need landing gear, engine mount, pushrods, gas tank etc...etc...These are all things that last from airplane to airplane. When someone tells you that you can build a Spad for less than $10 this means the "airframe"...not the whole airplane. Third...you cannot expect to shell out less than $10 and build just one "airframe" either. The sizes of the raw materials won't let you do this. Coroplast comes in 4' x 8' sheets and gutterpipe comes in 10' sticks. If you build one with the aluminum rail fuselage, the aluminum comes in 8' sticks. Therefore, I will tell you right off the bat you are going to have to shell out $20-$30 for materials to build your first airframe...but...now you have enough materials to build 3 or 4 more airplanes! Fourth... Since you are building your own plane, you must have tools. This is another expense if you are getting into the hobby and don't have anything yet. Glue, hobby knife, saws, etc...etc...and even though Spads can be build with hand tools only, things like a table saw and Dremel sure makes it easy. Fifth...Help. Building from plastic is still considered unconventional, and there is a learning curve to figuring it all out. I can tell you that I can build one in 3 hours...but keep in mind I've built hundreds of them. Your first one will take you 10+ hours to build while you figure everything out. Your next one will take half that time, and after several of them you'll be whipping them out in no time. But, just getting started can be frustrating and confusing, especially if you don't have a lot of hobby or craft experience. The best bet is to find other Spadders in your area. There is also several great Spad forums on the net to help you including the Spad topic right here at RCU. Is it worth starting with a Spad? Absolutely! Do I recommend it? Absolutely! But I certianly don't want to push someone in that direction unless they are aware of all that's involved (the reason for this post). Do I think starting with a Spad is better than starting with a wood kit built airplane or wood ARF? This answer may suprise a lot of people, but all things considered...no. There is a LOT to learn about this hobby. Many of the beginners kits and ARF's are very good at taking a beginner from knowing very little about airplanes...all the way to soloing. Spads are great, but what I have presented on the Spad web site is basically how to I built the Spad I'm flying/flew, and I'm am not a profesional writer by any means. If you try to start with a Debonair, but don't know the difference between an aileron and a doubler...you're going to be confused. A beginner's Kit or Arf will effectively give you a fantastic education from learning the aircraft part through learning how to set up your radio and flight trim and airplane. Another thing that I recognise as a big advantage to guys who start with an ARF...but then decide to try a Spad...is that now they have the stuff they need for the Spad such as landing gear, fuel tank, pushrods, etc...etc..these things give a new Spadder a big head start over someone getting into the hobby with their first plane being a Spad. Another thing is appreciation. Someone who starts with a Spad doesn't really have the appreciation for what they have built and fly because they don't have anything to compare it to. Possibly the largest amount of new Spadders come from the ranks of pilots who have splattered a wood airplane. Especially someone who spend a lot of money and a lot of time building and covering them. They know all about hanger rash, cover wrinkles, soggy wood, fuel proofing, hinging wood control surfaces, and the fear of crashing and repairing airplanes...etc...etc...etc. Some of the most interesting comments I've heard are from new pilots who started with Spads, and then decided to try a wood plane. So, although I would encourage anyone to get into this hobby with a Spad, and many have done it and there is tons of help out there for your success...I really don't think the fullest educational advantage, plastic appreciation and impact of building Spads is really realized if you start with them as your first airplane. But from your second plane on, if it's the direction you choose...ROCK ON Spadders!!! |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:01 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.