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.

RE: SPADs
 

Can you tell what this plane is made of?

RE: SPADs
 

Anyone with half a brain in their head can figure out how to build a SPAD from the directions on the website. I started with an Avistar, and after crashing that, I went to SPADs. First SPAD I built flew fine. The subsequent SPADs I built with the folded wings flew great as well, while the flat airfoils didn't fly as well. SPADs got me through the worst of my learning (a crash every 10-20 flights or so back then), and I have since switched back over to balsa/plywood planes. Here's a photo of one of my nicest flying SPADs, a little hand-launched, belly landed plane based on the Derelict plans. I had an OS .32 SX and an OS .40 LA in it at various times, and it was a screamer! It went about 60mph with the .32 in it. Flew nicely at slow speeds as well, floated in for dead-stick belly landings very nicely.

RE: SPADs
 

The 4-star looks like it might be a SPAD.

PKH's looks like a dog fighter with smaller ailerons. I have two of the .25 sized dogfighters and like them because they are manueverable, fly well, and can compete with the other guys in our club who have them too for combat. Ahhh, plastic...........

RE: SPADs
 

You know, Im a n00b to the hobby, but I would have to say in this particular case, from my research anyhow.

Its "you get what you paid for". I am NOT, speaking in terms of money.
I am NOT, speaking in terms of money. (Yes I repeated that.)

What I am speaking of is the effort you put into your chosen aircraft build. Be it an ARF Balsa, a Balsa kit, or a SPAD. If you give the proper attention to detail you get a good end result, if you just slap it together, you've got junk no matter what it cost in terms of money.

I have seen some really nice aircraft, and some VERY poorly built BALSA planes that flew like a brick in the 5 years I have mostly watched others fly. My belief, based solely on a theory developed from watching and research, that the emphasis those who haven't tried SPADS have on how "Bad" they are. Is based solely on the idea that if it didn't cost a hundred bucks or more, and/or it isn't "pretty" it must not be any good.

As my Scottish friend would say, thats rubbish! I've seen SPADS in video, and a couple in real life. I have yet to see one that didn't fly well within the constraints of what it was designed to do. One pilot I met literally built one from an election sign, a piece of aluminum rod, and a small engine. It flew GREAT! (Granted this is the same guy who could make a helicopter do things that I didn't think possible but hey..)

So, my thinking.. As soon as Ive solo'ed my Arrow, I'm gathering the supplies and building a SPAD, possibly a Deb, or a BUHOR if I cant obtain the tools to cut the gutter pipe for the deb. I will follow the instructions and give it a wing with a bit of dihedral, just because I'm new and want a more stable plane to play with. Naysayers say what you will, but in this case I believe what I tell my kids about food. You aren't qualified to like or dislike ANYTHING you aren't willing to try!

RE: SPADs
 

I see your still such a poor builder that you are controlling your airplane with a box. Why don't you LEARN to build and fly Free Flight like the big boys do?

Or

When are you going to grow up and fly RC instead of Control Line.

Hell for that matter why don't you come to Jesus you (fill in the religion of your choice) scum.

I've heard it all, and from closed minded jerks like you.

I don't fly SPAD's because they are durable. They are..

I don't fly SPAD's because they are in-expensive. They are.

I don't fly SPAD's because they fly great. They do.

I fly SPAD's because I enjoy designing, building and flying from concept to end and currently are building SPAD's. I have built and flown FF, CL and RC of many different disciplines. I slope soar at Wilson, I have flown Carrier and Race and Aerobatics and am a world famous, in Topeka, Balloon killer in Control line. I am a force to be reconned with in RC combat, in Bonderaunt. And I have FF Monocopters that have won Internet challenges before.

But the one thing I've never been able to stomach is a closed minded old fuddyduddy like you. Man have I had to put up with total horses Asses that didn't like plastic coverings over silk and dope. ARF's intead of kits when any true man builds from a kit. Except I've read a bunch of older magazines that poo poo'd building from a kit where a REAL man builds from plans. And really, only a REAL modeler draws his own plans instead of fake modelers that build from plans.

You sir, really don't want to sound like a closed minded jerk do you? I didn't think so.

Now, I really have problems with this whole discussion because I've associated you with a couple people in my own club. They have seriously discussed outlawing SPADs at our field. That has been shut down because there are too many of the members that fly combat with them. But these two older gentlemans idea of participating in this hobby has pretty much been to show up at meetings, complain about something, anything, and try to pass rules to eliminate it. When they get out to the field, they might actually get an airplane out of the car. But most of the time they will walk up to one of the benches, sit and ***** for an hour or so, then go home, happy that they've brought enjoyment and brotherhood to soooo many people. One of them who actually does fly ONLY flys ARF's now. This is a serious reversal because for years he was one of the 'REAL MEN build from kit' people. Don't know if he ever was a Plans Only guy.

So, naturally I've lumped you into the group with these guys and you don't deserve that. Heck, I've never even met you so you really can't say you're as closed minded as that. I do apologize.

As far as the flying capabilities of SPADs vs Balsa I will gladly stand by and say that I have seen way more junky flying Balsa planes than I have seen bad flying SPADs. That's just a fact. Course, there are a lot more Balsa planes out there aren't there. I've seen good and bad and BUILT good and bad and FLOWN some real stinkers in ALL disciplines. Can't just limit it with one, all encompassing, dumbass statement with the panasche that you have.

To truly be helpful in the future, you might consider analyzing what the original poster is looking for and applying that to your knowledge of aircraft. If you don't have a recommendation, you might pass on putting out there. Being so closed minded though helps nobody. Heck, the guy might actually want to build something out of FFF and then your BALSA only comment would be well out .


And finally, just like anything in life, you can't just throw money at something and say 'you get what you pay for' As pointed out in many MANY references, some of the best things in life are free. Hell, some of them are priceless and yet free for the taking. That kind of statement also clues one into the ignorance of the poster. You don't really want to again show ignorance, do you?

So you don't want to hear from me? Fine. Feel free to ignore this whole bit. For those of you with a more open mind. I invite you to give SPADs a look. There are plenty of different ones out there and if you stop by the forum and ask, give a little info on what you're looking for, perhaps we can line you up with a ship that will fit your needs. Remember, just like any other aspect of this hobby there is a whole body of work out there from the basic ships of 15 years ago that flew, but could use improvement. To the later greater ships that do what other planes can not. The whole of the SPAD development is there and if you take a Dart and expect it to fly as well as a 4 star 40, well that's not quite a fair comparison is it.

Remember, I don't just fly SPAD's. I fly dang near everything, well, except for Helicopters. I really don't have the deep pockets for those.

Edit, Oooo, or Turbines, or Ducted fans. Really can't see putting that much money into one of those. They're purty neat looking though.

RE: SPADs
 

No special tools needed. Many times I've cut the pipe with several passes of a razor blade. Other tools may be better, but not necessary. One of the great things about SPADs is to use what you got, including tools!

I think you'll really enjoy whatever SPAD you choose. I've got both balsa and SPAD planes and love both types. I'm not sure why someone would say SPADS fly poorly, I still can't figure out that statement. I can only assume it's inexperience with that type of aircraft, not sure.

Corey

RE: SPADs
 

AMEN to that

RE: SPADs
 

Guess I'll have to withhold any opinion on leukemia and syphilis, then. ;-)

RE: SPADs
 

Big Ed,

Now you know that almost every Spad I have built flies as good or if not better, than some Balsa Planes. You have seen most of them fly in person. An Electric spad can be done, and flown successfully just [link=http://www.putfile.com/omaha_rc_flyer/images/95015]Look at this one.[/link] Here is the video to prove it. http://media.putfile.com/Mini-Spadstick

Later,
Omaha

RE: SPADs
 

That was pretty funny. = )

Corey

RE: SPADs
 

Of course I've seen a number of your SPADs fly very well, Mike. I'm no SPAD-hater. Omaha_RC_Flyer built a Mini Spad-Stik that looked so nice I thought he'd bought a Hangar 9 ARF at first glance. My comments were qualified by the fact that:

-This will be the original poster's first build and first large/hobby quality trainer
-He was debating about going with glow versus electric on his first SPAD

Experienced builders are capable of building very nice flying SPADs. The original poster is not an experienced builder. Omaha_RC_Flyer has built a number of SPADs over the years to gain the experience he needs to craft the high-quality SPADs that he now builds.

The odds of somebody with no modelling or building experience slapping together their very first Spadet and having it come out as nicely as an LT-40 ARF is almost nil. The odds of that same inexperienced novice then putting together a brushless outrunner power system on his miracle Spadet and actually getting his motor, speed controller, y-connector, 2 parallel wired 3S LiPos, LiPo charger, and radio equipment all ironed out on the first attempt would be another miracle.

Omaha_RC_Flyer could do all of the above, and even he is considering buying something like a Nexstar EP or Electristar RTF trainer to fly as a camera platform. My only advice to the original poster was the same, if you're going to go electric on your first "real" airplane, you should skip the SPAD idea and buy one of these RTF models.

SPADs are fun to watch, and it's nice to see some of the innovative ideas that SPAD enthusiasts come up with. I just wouldn't recommend trying to build one as your primary trainer and then spending $400 (charger/balancer not included) on a brushless power system so you can power it.

I think this would be a recipe for frustration. If any SPAD enthusiasts disagree, I'd love to hear their argument to the contrary!

RE: SPADs
 

WHAT?

YUP spads SOMETIMES can be a little heavy but they DON"T HAVE TO BE. here is a LT 40 spad / swizzle stick knock off that wieghs less than my LT 40 kit built it has 2 and 4 mil wings balsa box on pine door stop stock fuse and balsa monokote tail. its a mongrel I 'm tellin ya! flys like a dream. and EASY as all get out to fix ...look close you'll see the fracture repairs[:@]

RE: SPADs
 

Oh, gimme a break. I've built and flown them so I can say what I want based on qualified experience. Get a life. If you like them, then build them, and fly them. Most of us just don't want to hear it.

Oh so serious. :eek: If you want to build plastic, then knock yourself out.

If you want to build balsa, the, please, do so.

Just ligthen up about whatever you build. Hey, I happen to like green tea. I also like ARF's. Who cares.

Potato's, Patato's. Your call.

RE: SPADs
 

As a noob that built a Spadet for his first ever plane. I loved it and it flew great even though it was 7.5lbs with a mag 46 on it. It handled the wind great, and landed like a dream. It took forever to get off the ground, but once airborne was a blast. The only thing I would add for someone that wanted to start out like I did with a SPAD is that all the little things add up when you have nothing to start with. Contol rod, fuel tubing, landing gear, fuel tank, and the like can add up to a what a cheap ARF costs. IF you SPAD most of that by building it yourself out of stuff you have around or is easy and cheap to get then you can save a significant amount of money. You can pretty much SPAD the whole airframe including the wheels for the landing gear if you want.

I do like that I'm not as afraid to crash them over a hundred and something dollar ARF.

Good Luck,

RE: SPADs
 

The first spad i built without outside help was a spadet, the plans are very straightford and easy to follow requiring no difficult tecchniques. as A6 said it flies like a dream, not to mention it survives full throttle encounters with trees much better than the LT40[:@][8D]

rcpilotcd