Sturdy Birdy II

Hi there,
Does anybody have any experience with a Sturdy Birdy II ?
I have not flown in a few years (had about 20 flights till I sold my
equipment) and am looking at getting back into it with something I can
fool around with.
Cheers.
Reply to
Richard Smith
Loading thread data ...
I'd recommend the Duraplane Trainer 40, since I am an expert on it with at least a thousand landings and hundreds of hours logged. However, if you have your heart set on the Sturdy Birdy, it'll will do the job too.
You might also look into SPADS:
formatting link

formatting link

Most of the modelers here are anti-SPAD and anti-Duraplane clinging to their fuel soaked balsa models like old women clinging to their bibles! Don't believe any of it. Free yourself of buildin' and fixin' and have some fun with the wave of the future!
Ciao,
Mr Akimoto
Reply to
Mr Akimoto
What would you reccomend for an electric starter plane Mr. Akimoto. I should tell you I am planning on learning by myself just through trial and error, I want something that will last and not something I will want to just replace once I know how to fly. I just plan on park flying and flying in a large empty field right behind my house.
I was looking at the Parkzone F-27 Stryker on the reccomendation of 3 different guys at the LHS who all have it, they say it is stable enough at low speeds to learn on.
I also was looking at the Aerobird Challenger and Xtreme.
I'm not sure who makes it but the LHS had a plane called a decathalon that I was looking at too.
I have NEVER flown before but feel I would learn quickly enough I have messed with RC boats and trucks/cars.
I would also like to look into getting a small camera to put on the plane that could maybe send a video feed to my VCR or computer so that I could take small video clips and stills while flying although a helicopter may be better suited for the stills, I want to learn how to fly planes before I get into Helis.
Reply to
Scotty
Thanks.
I actually learned on a Duraplane but sold all my equipment to pursue flying full size aircraft until it got too expensive to continue.
I am looking at getting back into RC to feed my need for flying.
The reason I thought of the Sturdy Birdy II is that the wingspan is wider for the 20 engine and thought it would be a little tamer.
Richard.
Reply to
Richard Smith
| I actually learned on a Duraplane but sold all my equipment to pursue | flying full size aircraft until it got too expensive to continue. | | I am looking at getting back into RC to feed my need for flying. | | The reason I thought of the Sturdy Birdy II is that the wingspan is | wider for the 20 engine and thought it would be a little tamer.
They certainly look identical. But mine still flies like a lead sled.
If you were in Texas, I'd give it to you for free. It's just taking space in my garage right now :)
| >Most of the modelers here are anti-SPAD and anti-Duraplane clinging to | >their fuel soaked balsa models like old women clinging to their bibles!
I've got a Sturdy Birdy II. It's practically identical to a Duraplane 20 trainer. It flies like ass. Heavy ass. I've no idea how it handles itself in a crash, because I've never crashed it. (I learned to fly without crashing planes on a regular basis. I save my crashing for the slope planes, for the _true_ foamies.)
Though judging from how it looks, a good crash would damage the engine and landing gear but leave the rest of the plane mostly intact or easily repairable. Servos might be stripped, but the plane itself would generally survive.
I've also got a SPAD airplane -- 0.10 engine. It flies OK, but in a loop it develops lots of dihedral, most of which goes away at the end of the loop. It's something to see. (And nothing some carbon fiber and epoxy won't fix.)
I don't recall seeing much in the way of anti-SPAD sentiment here. Which is good -- it wouldn't really be deserved. SPAD planes will fly as well as you designed them to fly. The Duraplane deserves all the abuse it gets, but SPAD is cool in that you can make it out of old political signs. For free. :)
| >Don't believe any of it. Free yourself of buildin' and fixin' and have | >some fun with the wave of the future!
Neither the Duraplane nor the SPAD is as durable as my Combat Wings XE2. And the flying wing flies better too.
Reply to
Doug McLaren
The Sturdy Birdy II may end up costing you a great deal of money if you sold all of your equipment as you stated. You'll need to buy:
-Sturdy Birdy II kit ($55) -Motor ($55 to $105) -Spinner and Propeller ($7) -1 roll low-heat covering ($8 for Econokote) - heat gun and covering iron ($25) - fuel tank ($3.59) - wheels ($5) -4 channel radio with flight pack ($119)
The Sturdy Birdy II kit ends up costing more than expected because of the covering expense and the few extra nick-nacks that aren't included with it.
Price that against a Tower Hobbies Tower Trainer 40 MkII RTF that comes pre-covered and with everything pre-installed for $234.98 after $25.00 discount (current promo on all orders of $150 or more). The RTF package includes a .46 ball bearing engine as well as all of the other miscellaneous equipment like the spinner, prop, glow plug, and the like.
Tower stocks extra parts, but a total disaster can be fixed by simply ordering the ARF to replace the airframe - $69.99
I can't think of any particular situation where the Sturdy Birdy II compares at all favorably, unless you simply want to build what you fly. If you want to spend the extra time and money before taking to the air, why not find a nicer looking trainer kit? Goldberg, Great Planes, and SIB all offer much nicer looking trainer kits that take .15 to .46 engine sizes in the same basic price range.
Closest comparison? Great Planes PT-20 or PT-40 MII Trainer kits. Your choice of .15 to .25 engine or .35 to .46 engine sizes, $59.99 or $69.99. Just as expensive and time consuming as the Sturdy Birdy II, but a much nicer looking finished product.
Reply to
Ed Paasch
| Tower stocks extra parts, but a total disaster can be fixed by simply | ordering the ARF to replace the airframe - $69.99
I certainly do agree with your general sentiment, but the total disaster scenario is not nearly this good. The engine is up front, in both planes, and a good smack into something hard will break it in either plane. And if you crash either plane hard enough, you can also strip servos or break other parts.
(Of course, there are other total disaster scenarios -- the plane crashes and you never find it. Or it crashes in a lake and goes straight to the bottom, never to be seen again. And we'll ignore the crashes where it hits something fragile ...)
The planes most likely to survive a crash have no fuselage at all, and the motor is in back, if there is one. They're the flying wings like the Zagis (though the Zagis themselves aren't ideal, because they have a canopy that tends to be destroyed in crashes.)
Probably the most resilient plane of all are the Super Fleas/Flys by
formatting link
-- they're extremely light, fly very slowly, and the motors and props are in back (for most of them anyways. The one with it up front is not what I'm talking about.) I've got two of these, though unfortunately they have the motor up front. So bad landings break the motor mount, prop and glow plug (one has a 0.061 Norvel engine) but the rest of the plane is undamaged every time.
| I can't think of any particular situation where the Sturdy Birdy II | compares at all favorably, unless you simply want to build what you | fly.
The Sturdy Birdy II is a tail dragger. The Tower Trainer is a tricycle gear. Tail draggers are generally better, at least in my opinion. Tricycle gear planes may be more stable on the ground but the nose gear is often a source of trouble, especially if you prang your landings.
And yes, the Sturdy Birdy II is more durable. High speed crashes will destroy either plane, but the SB2 will generally survive minor crashes with little or no damage -- so you may be able to keep flying that day rather than doing some repairs. But the Tower Trainer _will_ fly much better.
(And again, I have a SB2. And I've flown a few other trainers, .20 to .60 sized, though not specifically the Tower Trainer. I can compare the two.)
| Closest comparison? Great Planes PT-20 or PT-40 MII Trainer kits. Your | choice of .15 to .25 engine or .35 to .46 engine sizes, $59.99 or $69.99. | Just as expensive and time consuming as the Sturdy Birdy II, but a much | nicer looking finished product.
Better flying too.
Reply to
Doug McLaren
LOL! I've helped a couple guys with those bricks, a Duraplane and an Airmadillo. The only thing they did even partly well was land, mainly because they sink so fast and mostly don't break when they slam down onto the runway, although the Airmadillo guy totalled his when he got a little low over the trees and careened through one leaving only a heap of twisted aluminum and broken foam, the result of having to fly at warp speed just to stay airborne. A different guy gently flew his balsa ARF trainer into the same tree and all it did was stop short. We had to go up and get it, but it had only light covering damage.
Texas Pete
Reply to
Pete Kerezman
Richard:
Now what did I tell you? I consider money of no consequence, so I pursue what makes me happy. For example, I also fly a full-house Ultra Stick 40 using a Futaba 9C and an OS 46AX with a four-servo wing. I just love all those switches and buttons on my radio, and I need all this junk to be entertained and happy!
Anyway, if you want to get into the air quickly and get a lot of entertainment, I highly recommend a SPAD:
formatting link
The above thread should tell you all you need to know. All you need to do is add an engine (OS LA 40 for $60), a 4-channel radio (Ebay around $50 or new $130), and the field gear (If you're a cheapskate and have patience, you can often find a complete setup on Ebay cheap otherwise figure $100).
The comments from the peanut gallery about the T40 being too heavy or handling poorly are coming from people who don't know how to fly airplanes!
Ciao,
Mr Akimoto
Reply to
Mr Akimoto
i wont agree that the other pilots dont know how to fly, but i do agree that SPADS are great airplanes if you build them correctly. They can be made into some pretty nice looking planes as seen on the SPAD site
formatting link
in the gallery section. the plans are free and the materials are only a fistful of dollars. I started with a hobbytown USA trainer and learned to fly. shortly after my first major mishap it lost a wing. I then stumbled onto spads and have never looked back. Anyone that says they dont fly well hasnt built or set them up correctly. here are several of my personal spads.
formatting link

-- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users. It has removed 51 spam emails to date. Paying users do not have this message in their emails. Try
formatting link
for free now!
Reply to
Allthingsrc.com
Concur, Pete -- Duraplane, Sturdy Birdy, SPADS: All butt ugly!
Cheers -- \_________Lyman Slack________/ \_______Flying Gators R/C___/ \_____AMA 6430 LM____ / \___Gainesville FL_____/ Visit my Web Site at
formatting link

Reply to
Lyman Slack

Site Timeline

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.