Re: SPAD 3D

Also, check out Ed Moorman's column in the September issue of R/C Report. It's dedicated to the SPA3D...he seems to like it.

I built a SPAD, it was terrible.

I have to admit I was pretty excited about building something for pence, until the thing took-off. In fact I think it was partly my fault, I couldn't get hold of any 3mm Correx (Coroplast in the US) so I used 5mm correx. I don't know how heavy it was but it was heavy, and only had a 25 up front. It flew like shit from the word go. Actually My setting up may have had something to do with it, it had a v-tail, I think maybe it was too vertical. Elevator movement could at-best be described as 'extremely sloppy'. The most expensive part of the SPAD was a one-piece carbon fibre undercarriage I had attached, it cost more than everything else combined! It snapped under the sheer weight and lack of elevator control on the first landing.

My SPAD now sits in a dusty corner of my shed. I think the conclusion I reached is that 'Yes', you can build something for very cheap that flies, but I asked myself the question - Do you want something that flies, or something that flies nice. For that you need a properly build plane with a nice aerofoil.

I have to work with what you gave me...5mm coro and a .25? I don't need to know much more to know that that's an aweful combo, the plane was probably woefully underpowered with a very high wingloading. 5mm should only be used, maybe, as tailfeathers for a 1/4 scale gasser. This is tantamount to putting a .15 on a Sig Somethin Extra, and then strapping on a 3 lb. weight to boot. It won't fly for sh*t. Does this mean the plane is bad??

Two 30 yr RC vets at my club are into the SPAD thing in a big way. They love em and you ought to see what a SPA3D or a QHOR can do under the thumbs of experienced pilots. This is the first Ive heard of someone not liking SPADs. Mine fly excellent. Of course they arent meant to be ultra precise flying machines but they are extremely capable designs if set up right which is probably yours and others problems. Remember to read the instructions before flying.

JJ

Apparently you are on the pro-SPAD side of a debate that you appear to be trying to have in this thread. I don't want to argue. I hope you continue to enjoy them. SPADs fly, and you could even say that a lot of them fly well. But most of them have sloppy trims and inefficient airfoils. Not only that, but they about as pretty as a mud fence. However, if you want an airplane but you don't want to spend more than ten bucks, SPADs are probably just right for you. Just a few months ago a couple of guys showed up at the flying field with SPADs. One plane was very successfully flown, but the other one was still in experimental mode. I flew both of them and I was not impressed, even with the one that flew well. I remember when the US AirCore airplanes first hit the scene. They flew OK, but they were always wandering around... Personally, I'd rather just build a regular airplane out of balsa wood. It doesn't have to be expensive either. Just learn to build a plane from a set of plans and then buy a large lot of wood from one of the mail order vendors. Then you can build lots of planes for around $30 each.

Ted, It takes practice to fly one well, and that also means that you will have to use the rudder which most flyers do not use once they break ground. These planes are meant to fly in 3D mode and that means slow, so you'll have to learn throttle management too. If you try and fly them like a conventional airplane, they will wander all over the place. I have a PBF, a QHOR, and a SPA3D, and think they all are great. Each one flys slightly different than each other. It's great fun to hover with the tail inches off the ground to the dismay of the guys with the several thousand dollar airplanes. How can he do that with a junk airplane? They'll Harrier, elevator, waterfall, flatspin, turn on a dime, roll quickly, and even torque roll in capable hands. Once you learn their quirks , that is the flexing if you fly them too fast in the horizontal, you become fearless, and will try things you wouldn't dare with one of your balsa creations. They will definetly make you a better flyer once you get passed the learning stage. It is a completely different type of flying and that is where the problems arise. I think that you will have to learn to fly with exponential with some of these designs or you will be porpoising and over-controlling them because of the large control surfaces. You must have a reliable engine as they do not glide very well. If your engine quits you are landing NOW. So.... you'll have to burn some fuel in order to learn how to fly them well. That's no different than learning how to do a different maneuver or fly a different kind of airplane. An intermediate flyer can master these planes if he is persistent. Once you do you will always want to keep one in your stable. Joe L.

Nobody said they were absolutely indestructable. "Practically" indestructable, maybe. That means they can still be destructed, but it takes a lot more than a simple botched landing that would trash your typical balsa model.

The trim changes when the speed changes on ALL planes. I don't know what models you fly, but even simple balsa trainers require additional up elevator to maintain level flight as you slow them down. There are a couple of reasons why the trim changes would be much more pronounced, though. First, you probably didn't have the ailerons reflexed properly. They should be parallel to the top of the fuselage on most SPAD designs. Second, the CG was probably too far forward. Perhaps even third, your inexperience with working with Coroplast resulted in a warped wing? Since you've condemned all of SPAD, we'll probably never know...

You do realize that the results on the first attempt at ANYTHING are hardly perfect? Remember building your first balsa plane kit? Did it come out perfect? If you say, "Yes," you're lying. The tail was probably a little crooked, the covering was wrinkled, and the wing was a little warped. I bet it didn't fly all that well, either. Did your skills, and the plane's appearance and flying qualities improve as you gained experience? Say, "No," and you're lying again. Yes, they did.

Instead of condemning SPAD, build another one. The second one will come out much better than the first, and the third will come out much better than the second.

All the balsa building experience in the world doesn't prepare you to build with Coroplast and aluminum channel. It's a completely different material that requires a completely different set of skills. You can eat balsa and shit out perfect airplanes, but the first time you try to build with Coroplast, you're back to square one, a beginner. No balsa plane has ever been built by scoring and folding. Just like building with balsa, it's harder than it looks.

Two experiences by two different people with exactly one building experience each. Hardly a scientific sampling...

My first couple of SPADs weren't all that great, either. Now that I've gotten building with Coroplast down to a science, the planes I build fly extremely well. In fact, my latest creation, an all-Coroplast trainer/sport plane, has received rave reviews from everyone who's flown it or seen it fly.

I'm not a purist or elitist, I actually like the idea of flying something you've whacked together in a few hours, I fly a Zagi and foamie slope soarers as well as balsa/foam power models. I'm absolutely sure that had I built my SPAD out of more appropriate materials, thinner Coro for eaxmple, it would have flown better, much better, but at the same time I don't believe a standard SPAD with crease-built aerofoil is likely to match up to smooth, meticulously designed full aerofoil shape. That said, i'm putting down SPADs at all, the fact that they fly at all is cause for celebration in itself, and if what you're looking for is something to tear up the sky or 3D with, then i'm sure they're great, but you'd have to agree that on the looks scale your average SPAD Vs. a nice Pitts Special there's no comparison, nor should there be, the Pitts is a beautiful design, the SPAD is not so much designed as 'reckoned'. The Pitts will set you back a minter, the SPAD? Power to the people! Long live them both I say, they both have their places. Have Fun!

Meant to read "NOT putting down"! I'm not trying to be inflammatory! Honest!

experimental

But Frankie, don't you think that the "ever growing popularity of Spads" is simply a reflection of the world's gradual descent into mediocrity or worse?

If Robbie's a "purist" or "elitist" I'll eat my Somethin' Extra. If you're a jive turkey I'll eat pie. Mmmm, pie.

Texas Pete AMA 59376

ps - I don't expect a coherent answer.

Ya know, I had been looking at Spads off and on. Thought it might be neat to build and fly one. If 100% of the Spads I had seen flew like crap I would probably not want one. I have seen two, if the Airmadillo counts as a Spad, and actually flew one of those as my Dad has one. Flew ok, needed more throw but that was how he had it set up. He really didnt like it much and I am probably going to end up with it since I do want it.

However, if your response and attitude is typical of Spad flyers, I dont think I would be very proud to admit to having anything to do with em. I didnt see anywhere where the guy said they sucked. He said, due to HIS experiences with them, he was soured on em. Geez! Lighten up! He was talking about a type of RC airplane, not your mother, girlfriend, wife or football team. Why are you so defensive?? Being a Spad fan doesnt mean you are the shit and everyone else IS shit! Damn, dude! Your post has ME almost soured on Spads.

I just got into SPAD after my trainer ended up in 1000 pieces. My first SPAD flew pretty bad. I surmised that my wing airfoil design was bad and since it was made out of all 4mm coro it was a bit heavy for the 40 on it. I built a new wing out of 2mm coro and got a better air foil design. It now flies fantastic. I will never go back to balsa. The next Spad will be even better. My suggestion would be to look at your design and get some help from other Spadders.

Someone, with little knowledge of a subject, should not cast a poor light on it with generalizations. It's irresponsible and unfair. Let me give you an example:

Let's say someone decides to take up slope soaring. He knows no slope soarers, so he goes it alone. After giving it a try, he report here or to the soaring ng, using no details but only generalizations, saying such things as:

"It wouldn't stay in the air, it just kept crashing" "I got sick of climving up and down the hill, getting tired for nothing." "It was no fun, this experience has turned me off to sloping".

Okay, now, you know that it could have been a setup problem, or he isn't familiar with how much wind you need, or it was coming in wrong, etc. etc. The point is, he is inexperienced and uninformed, and to top it off he didn't ask for help really, he just whined a bit about how nothing went right, and prematurely laid blame on the equipment/sport, or at least hinted heavily in that direction. I hear this, but about Spads, all the time, but the funny thing is, out of 10 people only one has this negative experience. It reenforces a myth with some that Spads do not fly well (which is BS), and it just gets O-L-D after awhile. Spads are different, you just cannot expect to build one and fly it by yourself without some difficulty, especially if you do not enlist help from someone who flies them successfully. Write me off as a jerk, I couldn't care less. I do not think Spads are any better or worse than any other aspect of this hobby, they are just there, and happen to be my personal choice for R/C enjoyment. As an enthusiast, I do not like seeing them get a bum rap. Had he been more specific, and framed his post in the form of "can someone help me with this thing?" it would have been different. I would have tried to help politely. If he still did not care for it afterwards, well, then he could write it off as a learning experience and move on to something else.

Nor do you deserve one.

I didn't know that it would be so controversial for me not to like something. Just because I like balsa airplanes and not plastic ones doesn't make me an elitist, or at least I didn't think that it did. I like planes that fly on the wing, like real airplanes, and I like them to be smooth and trimmable, and I like them to be built of wood. I apologize if that offends you. I am not anti plastic. In fact, I even said that I am glad that you SPAD guys enjoy your hobby so much. I just don't care for them. In fact, I don't like Stingers or Somethin' Extras, either. The Somethin' Extra reminds me of any other fun-fly airplane that is supposed to only go slow and constantly be maneuvering. I don't like 3D flying, unless it involves the UltraStick formation show team from the other thread punching right through a 3D airplane hovering over the runway. I don't mind if you like 3D aerobatics. I just find it boring. But you would probably find my endless touch-and-go patterns boring. I'm guessing that you would find cutting wing ribs, applying monokote, and sanding boring, too. That's OK. I'm not offended. I don't know if you can relate to this or not, but I don't feel like I have to convince everybody that my airplanes are OK. If people don't like them, it doesn't bother me.

I also don't know why I need to be concerned about the growing popularity of SPADs. I know that they are there, and I know that some people like them. Ignorant or stupid? What is your point? I don't see why this is an issue. Is it going to affect me some day?

A little of each. Rude too. BTW, I also ignore the ever-growing popularity of a lot of other crap, such as the MTV "awards," and I'm quite happy to do so.

Texas Pete AMA 59376

The snobbery happens in reverse too. The club I used to fly with for 15 odd years was made up of relative newbies to the hobby in majority, and a small core group of relative veterans.

Imagine the snide comments I used to get when I would show up at a regular Sunday morning session with things like FF Ebenezers with .020's, Charybdis monocopters, rockets, etc (in addition to run-of-the-mill R/C stuff) . In general the long time modelers thought all such things were a hoot (they fly, right?), and the newbie trainer/sport aerobat crowd turned their noses up at them (it's not R/C, it's not worthy). I couldn't stomach that attitude from people barely able to assemble a kit or tune an engine correctly. I fly almost exclusively by myself or with a couple of buddies these days, in a small part due to that mentality but mostly just due to location and circumstance.

I say if you're going to be involved in any hobby, keep an open mind and know there's simply a whole bunch of different strokes for different folks.

I was delighted in about 1994 to briefly get to know a real old veteran modeller, who competed in free flight in the '50's and 60's, had built everything from 1/4 scale saiplanes to indoor rubber models (and all very, very well done). He had a nice farm property with a runway for models, and spent nearly all of his time building and flying. Point is - I don't recall him turning his nose up at anything. If it flew, he wanted to check it out. As a result, there was a small group of modellers who flew there with him regularly who liked anything and would show up with all sorts of relatively eclectic models, and normal stuff too and often for troubleshooting. Fun time, sadly he passed away about three years after I met him.

Mike D.

Damn right, which is exactly the message i've been unsuccessfully trying to offer. There's something about flight, it's a beautiful amazing thing, and right here we're all lucky enough to be able to appreciate it and spend time doing it. Getting over-concerned with 'what kind of flight is right?' is a waste of time. You do yours, I do mine, but eventually all that matters is that however we appreciate it, we do appreciate it.

I'm bailing out of this thread!