abba3

I have just obtained a Sig Kadet, one drawing the copyright date is 1972 it is in its orginal box and it appears to be in great shape. I was wondering if it is worth building?

tsands

My Feedback: (3)

if it's in good shape and the parts are all there then BUILD IT. It should be fine kadets are great flying birds

Epoxy Moxy

My Feedback: (3)

It's an Easy airplsne to build and re-build. The fuse, and stabs are mostly all 1/4 by 1/4 and the wing ribs are the same size from the root on out.

jettstarblue

Kadet Senior? Seniorita? MkII?

All good planes. Still available and a classic.

Being made of sticks make the Senior and Seniorita a bit of a stretch for a first time builder as the mitered joints must be pretty close to have good strength. It also makes them turn into a bag of slinters in the event of even a light a crash.

The MK II is more slabside doubler type construction. Better for a first timer in my opinion.


Overall a really good flying plane and will take off in about 20 feet with a good .40 on it. Lands at a fast jog with a little headwind.

Almost a glow powered park flyer.

js3

My Feedback: (3)

1972 would make this the original Sig Kadet--before there was ever a Jr., Mark II, Senior, Seniorita, LT or anything else. It's a GREAT airplane! If you don't want to build it, perhaps we can make a deal. If you're interested, send me a pm.

BasinBum

My Feedback: (2)

I don't think it is a collectors item yet but I'd check with EASYTIGER here on RCU first. It might be worth more in the box if it's in great condition. I am just finishing up a Kadet Senior kit with a lot of modifications such as adding ailerons and LED's for night flying. I learned on a three channel Senorita and I have to disagree with Jettstarblue. It was one of the most durable wood planes I ever owned. The lightweight balse stick construction was so light and strong that it survived many crashes, cartwheels and even a midair. That's why I decided to build my "Ultimate" trainer from the Senior.

bluebikerblan

One............It sure is worth building! My second RC plane was the Kadet in the early 70's, the first being a Falcon 56 (of course). You're lucky to have it! If it's not already a classic, it's well on it's way. Were it mine, I think I'd use the plans and parts where necessary as templates and thereby preserve everything original. Since there is a lot of "stick building" as I recall, it should be pretty easy. I recall it to be a forthright build and a great slow flyer. I agree with the "BasinBum" as to it's durability as well. As I recall I flew it with an Enya 35 which was more than enough. Best of luck, nice find.

submikester

My Feedback: (6)

The Kadet design deserves a special place in RC history. I've had a few, including a Senior or two, a Mk 2 that lasted nearly 20 years and a few different owners and now I'm flying a little Kadet EP 42 with a himaxx 2808-0960, a 3 cell lipo and a 10x4.7 APC slow flier prop. I get something like 20 minute flight times and cruise around at half throttle, I think I'm only pulling like 5 amps...

The thing is, out of all of them - they all fly just about the same. Rock solid stable including the little electric - I was amazed at how stable and solid it felt. I figured it'd be a little twitchy but it isn't at all.

I got something nearly an hour and a half of flight time on it this morning before the rain started on 3 batteries.

So, basically hell yeah you should build it.

BasinBum

My Feedback: (2)

Just started covering the wing. Red on the left/ green on the right and the rest will be all white.

jettstarblue

Respectfully I'll disagree with you disagreeing with me guys. (It's our nature, B.B.)

1972 is the copyright date, and may not be the date of manufacture. That's why I asked. Since abba3 didn't reply, I'm guessing it IS a Kadet Senior but I'm just guessing, just like js3 is.


Nonetheless, it's worth more built and flying than sitting in the box waiting for what? To become a "collectors item"? I have built several kits from the 30's through the 60's I bought from e-Bay for next to nothing.

Build it, it's a kit not a friggin' artifact! What's the point in cutting out a kit from a kit so you can 'save' a kit in a box? That's just crazy for something like a Kadet Senior.

My Dad flew his into some light tree tops and it turned into a bag of balsa. To take the durability opinions with a grain of salt.

So build it, fly it, crash it, and re-build it.

It was and is a good plane.

ballgunner

My Feedback: (1)

I've built three, all powered by .60's. the reason for the "overpowering" is the altitude of our field - 5,000' ASL. One of the best airplanes I've ever owned. Two just had to be owned by pilots willing to pay and I almost missed a tree on base leg with the third one, but the airplane is in another shop being rebuilt. Tough airplane, easy to fly and can be dressed up to present a pretty appearance. Not too impressed by the ARF version. I've seen the wings fold on two. Might not be the fault of the airplane, just heavy hands on the sticks.

BasinBum

My Feedback: (2)

I made light ply templates of the ribs and used plans that I copied from the full size at Kinkos so I can save the originals (which are folded anyways). It'll be easier to repar if I crash it and I could always build another since there are only about three parts that are not sticks and they are on the plans.

jettstarblue

From another thread- "To give more info on the sig kadet, it is a kit # R/C 31 wing span 57" ....."

Definitely NOT THE SENIOR![:@]

The number doesn't match with the current catalogue for any of the Kadet series, but with a span of 57" and the other specs he gave, I'm guessing it's a Kadet MK II......

Still a great plane, and better suited for a first time builder.

Epoxy Moxy

My Feedback: (3)

I'll also have to disagree with jettstarblue on a different issue,which is the plane being difficult for the first time builder. I think the 1/4by 1/4 stiks give the newbie a sense of accomplishment in the end and the instructions are geared foe a first timer. When it comes time to rebuild he just needs to buy a new bunch of 1/4 stiks. I destroyed my first one 5 times back in 1975
before I got the hang of it

chandler_ace

The original Sig Kadet was kit# RC-31 and was later revised (I don't know what changes) and the kit became RC-51. Maybe when the aileron option was included?

bluebikerblan

Hang in there partner...........difference of opinion and use of words rather than a debate. I distinguish between "durability" and "crashworthiness". As to copying kits, my point is entirely related to "eating my cake and having it too" when it comes to discontinued /vintage kits. Sure is an easy way to ensure that I/others may have an easy route to another down the road and a now build of the kit. One mans meat etc. Appreciate your point of view to the contrary never the less.

jettstarblue

Well alrighty then.

It's still not a Kadet Senior that he has.......so our discussion is kind of moot.

jettstarblue

Seems that is my place here.

With my previous posts, I was speaking from direct experience. My Dad built one (tried valiantly anyhow) as his very first plane....I helped him finish it. He flew into some very light treetops that would have tore the covering from a slab sided trainer and the whole plane from the trailing edge back disintegrated. It was NOT an easy fix, especially with the plans having been thrown out. Fixing minor crash damage on a PT 40 or similar is very easy, just glue it back together. 10 pieces are easier to jigsaw puzzle back together than 100 pieces of 1/4"X1/4" sticks.


Anyhow, build the danged thing already and let the air gods have their way with it. It's a plane, fly it.

jettstarblue

C'mon B.B., I know ya' got 2 more cents to add.

js3

My Feedback: (3)

I'm willing to bet some burnt out glow plugs and dull exacto blades that it is the original Sig Kadet.

Abba3, might you be able to post a picture of the plans? That would settle this debate once and for all.

jessiej

Sounds like the original to me. I built one in '72 or'73. Used a K&B .40 . Great plane! rebuilt after one fairly substantial crash then flew it for a couple more years. It was destroyed in a head on midair- with another Kadet.

jess

jettstarblue

I'm only stressing that this is not the "Senior" version, because that's the plane that is being "debated" here.

I looked for awhile on the web and couldn't find any pictures of an original Sig Kadet. Everything that came up shows the Kadet Senior.

Anyone have some pictures and specs for this plane? Hossfly?

ChrisK-RCU

Here is a picture of the box for the original. (hopefully I uploaded it correctly). Great flying airplane - I learned to fly on one in the late '80's

jettstarblue

Thanks for that! What was the construction- sticks or slab sides?

ChrisK-RCU

The sides of the fuse were balsa slabs, with sticks glued to the inside of the slab for reinforcement. It was a really solid airplane. I remember a couple of very hard "landings" that resulted in minimal damage.