A friend is trying to decide which kit to buy. Is the LT40 laser cut? Are their any known issues with the LT40 building or traits as a trainer that should be addressed?

I have built and flown a telemaster 40 and senior, how does these planes compare to the LT40?

Everyone has an opinion, of course...The LT-40 kit is a mix of laser and other type parts. But with typical Sig instructions, anyone at all handy, with a little help, can turn out a credible model. Haven't seen the Tele instructions, so can't judge, but I bet theyare pretty decent. . Here's where my opinion may be a little different from the crowd. The Tele- or the Kadet Senior, are 3 channel models, the LT-40 is more an aileron trainer. I prefer the RET planes as primary trainers, followed by something like the LT-40 as the first aileron trainer.
But the LT-40 might be some easier for an inexperienced builder to complete and fly. So, I figure these are aall useable choices. Which to use depends on the situation and the abilities of the beginner..

Having built and flown as well as instructed with both, the LT 40 is much easier to build and fly. The Telemaster 40 which I had was 4 channel and I had flaps also but it requires much, much more building time and skill.
All around the LT 40 is one of the best for it's intended purpose,a very capable plane that is easy to fix and can be made into a taildragger or a larger engine installed when the time comes for a "little more".
The Telemaster has a tendency to float and be more prone to wind problems and being a tail dragger a little more demanding for the beginner.
These are only my observations and opinions.........

Since I have not built or flown the telemaster, I can't offer an opinion on it. I have however built and flown the Sig LT-40, and it is a great airplane. The kit is a nice relaxing build, and the end result if built correctly is a great flying Trainer.

I second the LT-40 trainer. They just don't come much better than this. You might look for a build thread in the beginners forum about a month or two ago. The member was named "somegeek" and he did a really great build with great documentation and photos.

Thumbs Up on the SIG LT-40 that was my first kit build and it was very easy to follow the instructions and it flys great . I have flow many trainers some good and some are not so good. But never a telmaster so I cant coment on it . But the LT-40 is a super trainer I still like flying mine from time to time .

I have built and flown LT-40's and even kit bashed a few very nice forgiving airplane and the plans are very easy to follow,with most everything in the box to boot.Now I am trying to put a telemaster 40 together and well I just put everything back in the box and gong to order another LT,enough said

The Telemaster is a bit more of a build and will float in the sky forever. It is a great plane to learn on, however the LT 40 I believe is a better kit and an easier plane to fly how to fly. Good Luck, Dave

I tried a Telemaster 66 many years ago and wound up putting it back in the box. The wingtip blocks could have been used for engine mounts.

Couple of years ago my son and I built the LT-40 kit. The Sig kit is a modern production effort which is marvelously engineered. Most of the fuselage is lite-ply, laser cut and everything locks together. Excellent instructions. We took a week and were covering the airframe.

The Sig trainer now has about 50 flights to it's credit and is a terrific flier. I'm sure we'll keep enjoying the LT-40 for years to come.

The Telemaster is a tail dragger and the LT40 is normally a tricycle (nosewheel) airplane. However it is very easy to convert the LT 40 to to tail wheel.

When both plane are tail draggers the fly very much the same. I had a LT40 ARF ever since they came out some 10 years ago. A friend had a Telemaster 40 with a Saito 50. It was a sweetheart to fly as is my LT40.

Does he want to build for the experience or just have a trainer? The LT is a modern kit, easy to build. The Telemaster is a stick kit and will require more tools, skill and patience to build BUT if he is going to be a builder it is IMHO the better choice.

Just as in full scale it is better to learn on a tail dragger. You will see flyer after flyer (myself included) that eventually convert nose gear ships to tail draggers so he might as well go with it from the start.

I still have a LT-40 (tail converted) and I also fly a Senior Telemaster. Both are easy to fly but the Telemaster floats so much that a greenhorn might have trouble hitting the runway. I mean on his wheels of course (:-).

Regards

luketrot,
Built a Telemaster 40 MANY (25+) years ago and built an LT 40 about 4 years ago. For a first plane/build the LT 40 gets my vote. Much easier to build and, as a beginner, it seemed to be easier to fly. However my memories of the Telemaster are clouded by time!

My son-in-law flew that same Telemaster a couple years ago and it still seemed to be more difficult than the LT 40. Could have been my building skills also, but the plane was straight.

I would do the LT 40 for no other reason than the amount off work required to build it. Trainers seem to lead a difficult life and the more time one has in a plane the more difficult seems to be any loss thereof. I remember being pleased with the quality of the LT 40 kit also. It was a relief to have everything fit so well and not have to rework many parts at all. I think it was partially die-cut (cleanly) and partially laser-cut.

Very nice kit and nice plane. Mine flew very well with a Saito .50, but would probably us a .56 or.62 today.

Folks, this question was asked on 10/6/2005 at 2:23:19 PM

By now he has either made his decision, or he never will.

Chuckle. I didn't check the date.

It showed up in my email and struck a chord since I have both planes.

Regards
Don