SPADs
 

Hi everyone i am a beginner looking to start on a SPAD trainer. I am interested in electric motors. My only previous experience is fying one of those $30.00 electric planes that you would by from a hardware store(Harbor Freight) where the steering ability is controlled by the electric motors. The sisze of this plane would have to have a .40-.60 engine. What would I need in an electric? Will it be as powerful?

Thanks,
~Benchalot~

RE: SPADs
 

A .40-sized glow engine like the Super Tigre G-40 will cost you about $49.99. An equivelant brushless electric power system can be purchased to fly the plane with similar authority, it will set you back about $250 to $300 for motor, speed controller (ESC), and LiPo battery.

If you need to go cheap, go glow. If you need to go electric, spend a little bit extra and buy a real airframe. Balsa flies better. You can purchase a Ready-to-Fly electric trainer with a brushless power system and radio for around $299.99 plus batteries:

http://www.hobbico.com/airplanes/hcaa12.html

Good luck and good shopping.

RE: SPADs
 

I agree, in the .40 to .60 size airplane glow is indeed much cheaper than electric to get started.
In the long run, assuming your battery last long enough, the cost is about the same.
The big difference is with electric you are buying your fuel up front in the form of a quite expensive lipo battery.
And yes, with the proper electric motor, it will be just as poerfull and the equivelent glow engine But like I said quite costly to get into.
If you do go electric get a good Lipo balance charger right up front. It will keep you going into the future and help your batteries last longer.

RE: SPADs
 

I"ve built a couple of SPAD's. They tend to come out rather heavy, and that means glow.. unless, as was said, you have lots of extra $$$$ to toss around on an electric power system.

CGr

RE: SPADs
 

I think glow is better for starting out, reason: The average flight time for glow once airborne is considered to be about 10 minutes. You need a really good battery pack to get a 10 minutes and then what?? With a electric powered plane you have to remove the battery pack. hook up your field charger and recharge it for about 40 minutes or, have another expensive fully charged battery pack to replace it with. Most training sessions at our field consist of about six 10 minute flights. How much are 6 battery packs going to cost you?? Or, are you planning on getting 1 flight in and going back home?? [:o]

RE: SPADs
 

I am going to have to agree with the afor mentioned SPAD + Glow = Fun while SPAD + Electric = Expensive, but this is your project and your money. Hop over to the electric forum and the SPAD forum and you can get better recomendations for motor and airframe. Electric planes are built especially light so they can fly with less power and SPADS are heavy by nature.

RE: SPADs
 

My original plan was and still is to go gas. I was interested in electric until you all informed me of the greater headaches I would induce trying to keep it going with battery packs. I intend to try to fly longer than 10 minutes or at least go up 2 or 3 times some good flights.

RE: SPADs
 

There is a plane called the Airmadillo from a company called Kombat. This plane had a coroplast wing and tail feathers and a aluminum square tube fuse. its a 40 size, A/E/T/R control and is very durable. Its a good stable flier and can handle the wind.

Look for used engines, I've had good luck buying 40 and 46s for $30-40 used and they all work fine.

Another way to go inexpensively is to go to a club swap meet. I bought a 40 inch trainer for $15 (Airframe, steerable trike gear and control rods hooked up) and threw in my electronics and an old 25 and it flies real stable and slow.

This way is even cheaper than building a SPAD from scratch.

Electrics are great if you have noise restictions. The batteries are good but you really need enough batteries to do three flights to really get some flying time. Else you're waiting for them to charge. Be very careful with your batteries cause you can kill one easy by just flying longer than you should or charging them wrong.

Gas is good cause you can just fill up and fly you can fly probably 50 minutes out of an hour if you have a good receiver battery

Anyway good luck

RE: SPADs
 

I tested receiver battery packs after 6, 7, and 8 ten minute flights. 6 flights was easily obtainable and after the 8th flight the batteries were pretty much at the lower safety limit. This was using 500 or 600 mah. packs. If you have a 1500 or 1600 mah pack, then of course you can pretty much double that but then you better be watching the transmitter batteries as well. [8D]

RE: SPADs
 

Hey.. SPADs are fun to build and fun to fly. Mine was a blast to fly, but it ended up having some issues and it ended up in the scrap heap after a rather spectular crash... one of the few I've actually splintered. But, as I said, they are really fun to build. Just make sure you power it correctly because, as I've said, and others have said, they are heavy by nature.

CGr

RE: SPADs
 

Another cost often overlooked with electrics is the recharger capable of handling the flight batteries. 'Taint cheap and usually runs about as much as a well equipped field box for glow engine models.

RE: SPADs
 

Oh, how true, Charlie. The Triton charger costs $125 and the ICE charger costs about the same. I know cuz I have both of them. They do the job, alright, but heck, I can outfit a glow field box for a lot less than either one of those chargers. Then consider the LiPo's. They are not cheap in their own right.. and, one mistake and.. poof.. they are gone. I am not cutting down electric flight, but just trying to point out that there are differences and often the differences are overlooked. For the cost conscious RC'er, it can be an issue.

CGr

RE: SPADs
 

This is coming from someone who has either never built a SPAD or never built a SPAD well. There is no reason a SPAD can not fly as well as balsa plane if built correctly. You'd be better off to go to the SPAD forums if want some less biased advice.

RE: SPADs
 

I built an enlarged modified version of a Spad called a Demon. It had a 66" span and was a fast flyer and handled the wind well with an Os 46FX on the front. The wings tend to be very heavy but tough as nails while the fuselage is very light. I ploughed into the side of a hill once with it and took out a bunch of weeds and some scrub grass. The wing of course was undamaged! I eventually stripped it for parts because of the look of the thing and I didn't like not being able to see the skinny white fuselage in the air. [8D]

RE: SPADs
 

That, and electrics have no soul. :) Gimme a messy 'ol I/C that burbbles and throbs at idle and then growls and screams on take-off.

RE: SPADs
 

NOISE!!! Yeah!!! :D Ya can't trust 'em if ya can't hear 'em!! :)

RE: SPADs
 

Point taken, Gravityisnotmyfriend, but the SPAD forums would merely be biased in the opposite direction. I have friends who build and fly SPADs and they enjoy the challenge of it. It's not an interest of mine.

You did take that quote of me out of context. I wasn't discouraging the original poster from flying a SPAD, merely indicating that an electric powered trainer would be better off if it were built-up balsa. I didn't see the point of spending $300+ on a brushless power setup so you could strap it onto $15 worth of PVC and Coroplast. I would guess that hundreds of new pilots learn to fly on glow-powered SPADs (either home made or Duraplane/Sturdy Birdy type kits) every year. I wouldn't talk the original poster out of this idea if he wanted to give it a try.

I also used the phrase "balsa flies better" a little tongue-in-cheek, I believe it's somebody's advertising slogan. I also happen to believe that it's true. When you build a SPAD that flies as well as a Sig Kadet LT-40, please let me know.

RE: SPADs
 

Lighter is better...period. SPAD planes are cheap, durable and...that's about it.

There are many reasons SPADS are not more popular than the enthusiasts would like. Among them is that they fly like molten bricks at best. Yes you can have a grand ol' time for less than $40, but you must deal with the UM....thrifty?.....OK just friggin CHEAP F.O.G.'s who will make you think they invented flight itself.

SPADS are junk. Sorry, ...it's true. They can be fun, but they are nothing more than a budget flyer. Fly a plane that is built and intended to fly, not crash. Your skills will NEVER exceed your OWN expectations. If you choose to fly planes that MAY survive a crash, how will you ever master anything more?

Those who fly spads, IMHO, have just given-up. (Please don't tell me about all of the famous SPAD records, pilots, aerobatics and the like). I don't care, and I really don't want to hear from you.

You really do get what you pay for in this hobby.

RE: SPADs
 

I will agree that for an electric, SPADs are not the best match. And that the type of electric system that would be required is cost prohibitive. While the SPAD forum may be biased for SPADs, SPADs is what he was asking about. He would have been discouraged from using electric there as well.

When you build a LT-40 that will stand up to the rough landings and abuse from a beginning pilot as well as a SPAdet will how bout you let me know?

At least you acknowledge that there is a place for SPADs in this hobby.

But then you got yahoos like agexpert who post drivel like the above post. I really see no point in refuting anything he has to say. He said himself, " I don't care and I don't want to hear from you". It's that kind of closed mindedness that inhibits this hobby's progression. He can just stick to flying whatever towerhobbies tells him he can. I'm going to stick to designing and building my own planes.

RE: SPADs
 

I learned to fly on a Debonair, when you are learning you will crash and the SPAD will take it. I've seen Balsa ARF trainers out at the field and flown and crashed before the plane was paid for. The weight has its advantages, the SPADS handle wind verry well and that is really a plus here in west Texas. IMHO a spad trainer is the only way to go, just put a big enough engine to handle the weight. Go to the Spad Forums, there is a electric Debonair,

RE: SPADs
 

www.spadworld.net
www.spadtothebone.com

while it takes slightly longer to build (1 day instead of an afternoon) the spadet both looks fantastic and yields flight performance almost identical to its balsa cousin. in my opinion it is tougher than the clasic gutter pipe spads and weighs significantly less.

rcpilotcd

RE: SPADs
 

I agree with Gravity. I've flown just about every weekend for the last five years and own balsa planes (300 Edge, P51 Mustangs, Telemasters, and just about anything with wings) & I also fly SPADS. SPADS are a little heavier than balsa but DO fly very nicely. I have two SPAD Spadets (they are about the same dimensions and configuration of the LT40) and they fly very well and are comparable to the LT40. One has a pair of water floats and the other is used during the year for aerial video shots and has been flown on snow with skiis two years in a row. I am the VP of the Des Moines Modelairs and our club has about 120 members. Some of them have spads but those that don't at least refrain from impolite remarks.

I put together a Ultra Spadstick in 7 nights time and flew it with a G38 Gas. The video below shows how well a SPAD can fly. The ailerons are set at low rates but on high, it really rolls.

I know this probably won't convince naysayers but it's really meant for those who want answers from people who fly both balsa and SPADS and can make an "informed" response:

[link=http://youtube.com/watch?v=gFmKq0RPeaE]Ultra Spad Video Link[/link]

I have tons of videos on my FTP site showing SPADS in flight so take a look. Seeing IS believing:

[link=http://rcairplane.onlinestoragesolution.com/]FTP Video site[/link]

RE: SPADs
 

I'm kind of neutral here, but I will comment that SPADs are much more durable than balsa . . . and that is a good thing because of the way the ones I have seen fly and respond. Now, I'm sure there are highly developed SPADs that perform well. I just have only seen the ones that some poor schmoe downloaded two images and a six paragraph construction article and slapped together with salvaged parts cut from a synthetic kitchen chopping block and election signs swiped from lawns. We only had two guys in our club that futzed around with them, and the rest of us were underwhelmed. They fly, but not well. Wings generally too narrow, no lateral stability and they ground loop like horseshoes coming in. The ones that did fly better were the light profile designs: 2-D models doing 3-D stunts. If you're the type that flies on the prop they'll probably keep you happy.

A softball is durable, will fly if you push it with enough force, but it is not an aircraft. I'm not interested in maneuvers that can be duplicated by draping the wheels over a clothesline.

RE: SPADs
 

yes, all 4mm triangle airfoils do yield loft problems but that can be remidied by building the wing RNAF style (2mm to 4mm bottom) or for added weight reduction build the wing from 2mm. I have never encountered a spad that lacked lateral stabillity. ground looping is caused by not having enough "toe in" in the landing gear.

I like EB fly both spads and balsa. in my opinion if you want a cheap, good flying, durable trainer then go with a spadet.

rcpilotcd

RE: SPADs
 

That is a huge problem with SPADs. Since there are few people that fly them, there is little building support. So, when someone decides to try something new, they build a SPAD and perhaps they build it poorly. When they bring it out to the field, they get all the standard remarks about how plastic is junk and will never fly well. They then give up and go back to balsa. If there were people who knew how to build SPADs or were even willing to give them a try, the same person could improve their building abilities and come out with a good flying plane.

Like EmailBanter I fly both SPADs and balsa. I have a kit built Ultimate Bipe with a .91 4S, a kit built profile 3D plane, a kit built Seamaster, and a large 8' span gasser. I have a balsa plane for nearly every type of flying. If balsa were so vastly superior, why would I mess with SPADs at all?

- For one, SPADs are unique. I can design build and test fly a plane in a week. It takes me 2-3 months to build a balsa kit and all the hard work has already been done. I just have to assemble the pieces.

SPADs are tough and I don't have much invested in the airframe. I don't have a single balsa plane that I would even think about dragging the vertical fin through the grass at 80+ MPH. I have pics, videos, and witnesses that will tell you I do that regularly with my DPS. SPADs are fun to fly for me because I can push the envelope without worrying about failure. So what if I crash? Even if the plane doesn't survive (usually it does) I can rebuild it and be back at the field the next day.

This thread has been hijacked enough. If someone wants to start their own thread about balsa vs SPAD I'll be happy to give my opinions. If the OP really wants to learn about SPADs as a first plane, I suggest he follow the links rcpilotcd posted.