| Bob,
I would say you should recommend neither. There are much better
ARF trainers out there now. The cardinal and solo are heavy due
to the plastic and foam construction. They are also hard to repair.
Topflight has a trainer called the Headmaster I think that is balsa
construction. It looks something like a Sig Kadet MK II. It flies
very well. Great Planes has a new one called the Aerostar I think.
It looks like a reasonable trainer but I haven't seen one fly yet.
Beginners need a good flying trainer not something designed to crash
well. Assuming one has an instructor, the better the trainer, the
faster one will learn to solo and the less likely he is to crash
it while learning.
Charlie
|
|
I wanted to chime in....
You guy's will laugh but.... one of the best flying planes I have
seen as a trainer is the Balsa USA stick 40. It has a big wing that
can carry a lot of weight. It has the simplicity of fuel systems.
Yes in the open but easy to fix or check if one has a problem.
The fuse is very strong. The wing is very strong, 3/32 sheeting
etc. It's simple to repair.
Yes it looks terrible but it does do an excellent job of offering
a simple,easy to build,repair,fly,cheap trainer.
You'll laugh again. I actually have one that I keep to use as a
radio test plane/engine test plane. I did modify it's engine mount.
I deleted the 1/2 x 3/4 maple blocks at the engine locating and
installed a 1/4" ply engine mounting plate. By using different plates
I can easily change engines. My Stick 40 has flown on 20-60 sized
engines.It's certainly not one of the better all time all around
RC aircraft but it is one of the better (and most times overlooked)
first airplane trainers
Tom
|
| I'd have to agree with Tom - I started on the 20 size stick, and
it took a real lick'n, and cost under $20. I do think there are
better trainers in terms of flight char., but if ya weigh the cost
vs. durability vs build time - the stick is right in there.
/Brian
|