About U.S. Aircore trainer - RC Groups
Thread Tools
Jun 05, 2002, 03:54 PM
Registered User

About U.S. Aircore trainer

I plan to buy U.S. Aircore Trainer, but need more information to make my final decision.

1. Is it hard to build this aiplane?
2. How about her fly performances?
3. How about her materials? as stonge as the manufactory said ?

Many thanks
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Jun 05, 2002, 05:01 PM
Registered User
rcav8r2's Avatar
Well it's been a while since I built one. They are now made by Great Pains, and from what I hear from a guy at the field who used to love them; the quality is way down. He no longer flies them.

So based on my past experience.. I built the Bipe:
1) I am used to building balsa planes, and this was my first experience with this type of construction. I found it very easy to build. I don't like the servos attached directly to the same piece of wood that the motor is though. Just personal prefernce.

2) The bipe flew like a bipe. Slow and sloppy. When it got really warm out, things got weird. It was a good "cool weather" plane. I have flown quite a few of the trainers for guys though, and they flew fine. Not as good as a built up trainer or modern day ARF, but they flew fine.

3)Well this all depends on how you crash. Personally I think they are the toughest glow plane out there. I have seen all sorts of crashes and only once did I see an engine break off the wooden mounting plate. THese things really do bounce. A few guys at our club used the low wing one as an introduction to a low wing. THey were figure 9ing these left and right. Snapping in on take off, and landing, you name it. Within a few minutes the wing was back on and they were flying again. 99% of the time they didn't even break a prop. If you nose it in, expect some moderate damage though.
Jun 05, 2002, 07:43 PM
Registered User
I learned to fly on this plane and assembly is pretty easy. It can definitly take some abuse. My opinion is go to www.spadtothebone.com and get some plastic and build a few of there plans much easier to build and cheaper.
Jun 05, 2002, 10:58 PM
Registered User
Dauntae's Avatar
There are a few at my club and one is for a newbie still on the trainer cord, That one has come down hard a few times and the most damage was a dent in the wing from hitting a tree, However they don't fly very good and all of them tip stall real easy and they glide like a lead baloon. If you do get one you will want to streangthen up the tail section because it tends to flop around a bit but on the good side, It will take the abuse with little to no damage.

Jun 05, 2002, 11:20 PM
dusty bible = dirty life
Majortomski's Avatar
I've been teaching r/c basics for five years now. The one fold and fly trainer that made it to our field was fine as a buddy box trainer. It was much faster and Heavier that the Kadet LT40's we like to use for training. As the other post said it works LT 40s and Midwest's recently rereleased aerostar are much better.
Jun 06, 2002, 07:22 AM
Registered User

Many thanks

Hi guys:
Many thanks your opinions, and have good fly days.
Jun 10, 2002, 12:36 PM
Dave Segal
The problem with planes like this as well as the "flying drainpipes" is that they are based on the wrong philosophy. A model should not be designed to crash well, it should be designed to fly well. And that means a low wing loading for a trainer which you will get in a conventional balsa-based design. There is a mainstream approach to learning to fly RC and it is best to stick with the tested items that are used by nearly everyone.

Dave Segal