Most durable Foam plane

[dahawk]

Originally Posted by AEAJR

OK, guys, you have my attention with the http://www.crashtesthobby.com/ Albatross shown in the video. Looking at the web site, the 36" Pelican. They look very cool and could be excellent first planes.

Have you guys actually flown these or are we all commenting on a video?

I have a project coming up that might involve working with middle school aged kids and these might fit the bill.

AEAJR,

Looked at the site and I agree. I like the EPP foam idea. You can bang it and clang it and it returns for more punishment. The high wing with lots of dihedral will also help. But why not get some plans and have the kids build them from scratch? That way, they will learn everything about the plane and take on more "ownership". Just a thought...

-Hawk

[AEAJR]

Originally Posted by dahawk

AEAJR,

Looked at the site and I agree. I like the EPP foam idea. You can bang it and clang it and it returns for more punishment. The high wing with lots of dihedral will also help. But why not get some plans and have the kids build them from scratch? That way, they will learn everything about the plane and take on more "ownership". Just a thought...

-Hawk

I am not sure I understand what you are suggesting.

Whether it is the original poster of this thread or my project one must always understand the objective.

Are we trying to learn how to build or are we trying to learn how to fly or both. When we understand the objective then we understand what is needed to help us achieve that objective.

I am a pilot. I am a flyer. I am not a builder. I repair but building kits or from scratch are not activites that attract me. I have built several kits and I can tell you that the building process was interesting but I was so happy when it was done. Kinda like having filings put in my teeth. I don't enjoy it but it is necessary sometimes.

I have given away partially finished kits because I knew I would never complete them.

So, you must always understand the objective.

I teach people to fly. I teach people to fix. I have no desire to teach people how to build. And one does not need to build something to know how to fix it.

I did not build my car or my house. But I can fix them if I need to.

The same goes for my aircraft. I buy RTF and ARF type aircraft. Some of them are very high end. I may do final assembly but that is a means to an end.

I have a $1500 glider sitting on my work table right now. The work I have to do is fairly straight forward but if it had all been done for me already I would have liked it better. I just want to fly it.

So, to answer your question about getting the kids to build from scratch? If that is the task, then let someone else take on the project as I have no interest in this. These kits look simple enough that I can get them through that, but the ONLY objective here is to teach them to fly. Building a kit is simply the barrier between us and flying.

If I can find an ARF or an RTF that gives me what I want for the price I want to pay, I will go ARF or RTF every time.

I have nothing against building or kits. Just not my cup of tea.

[chipnkim]

For myself I would like to learn to do both, I hope learning to fly will help me learn about what kind of plane to build. I'm taking this hobby on with my two kids, If they get the fly bug then I'm sure they will be willing to build. I to like the albatross but I'm not sure about the combined cost of build and equipment, compared to RTF.

[AEAJR]

Originally Posted by chipnkim

For myself I would like to learn to do both, I hope learning to fly will help me learn about what kind of plane to build. I'm taking this hobby on with my two kids, If they get the fly bug then I'm sure they will be willing to build. I to like the albatross but I'm not sure about the combined cost of build and equipment, compared to RTF.

This is the appraoch most of my students wish to follow. Learn to fly. THEN and ONLY THEN, if I like flying will I be interested in investing time in building a kit.

As to cost. There are two approaches. With today's cheap electroncis you can build these EPP trainers pretty cheap using equipment comparable to what you would get in an RTF.

Or you can build the kits because you want to put in better stuff and invtest for the future. So how much it costs to get started is up to you.

A Hobby King Motor, prop, ESC it will cost you between $20 and $30.
HK Servos - $3 each - you will need two.
HK Battery - About $12
HK Charger - About $25

4 channel 2.4 GHz HK Radio/Receiver - $25 Is it a GREAT radio? Can't say. You get what you pay for. But probably comparable to what you would get in an RTF package.

Things like glue, tape, and the like are things that you will use over many planes so how you look at them is up to you.

You can buy cheap or you can buy better. Most RTFs are based on cheap to get to a price point, so I have given you the cheap path for your kits too.

And like anything else, there are CHEAP RTFs and there are "better" RTFs.

I consider the Multiplex EZ Star, the HobbyZone Super Cub and the Parkzone Radian as better RTFs, but they cost more than the cheapies.

[Rockin Robbins]

Okay, Ed, here's the link to the thread over at that other forum, which shall remain nameless ) where the plane introduced by its builder and there are posts by owners and fliers of the plane. You can also see my ineffectual attempts to get the owner, Lee, to realize the potential behind his plane. You're much better at persuasion than I am, or maybe he just doesn't want the headaches associated with growth. Heck, I'd work for him on this: it's a sure-fire success!

It's the only plane that I am familiar with that could blow the Champ and SuperCub right out of the #1 and #2 positions for learner airplanes.

Okay, I guess I have to get into why a true RTF plane is so essential to growing our hobby. Back in the day when chances were a kid would actually build a free flight plane or six at school and there was a lot of energy in teaching KIDS to build and fly, and there were no RTF planes, this wasn't an issue. You could find help. You could actually be involved in flying, even though it wasn't your plane, while you surmounted the trials of building your first plane. It was a much simpler free flight plane that taught you the fundamentals of building and the fundamentals of flight. You weren't alone. You had help.

Even so, there were a lot of people who put a month or so into building for a flight of ten seconds, a fuselage-shattering crash and a swift exit from the hobby. But the equation worked. For every drop-out there were two more in the process of leaning.

Now the dynamics are different. Schools are so focused on standardized government tests that they no longer value hobbies as the vital pieces of education that they are. Free flight? It's dead. Look at the membership of the free flight societies and I'll bet their average age is over 65. Great people but they aren't the missionaries that high school age kids are. There's no money in free flight so there's no commercial promotion.

Having not built free flight planes people don't know how to determine whether their plane will fly or not. A brick looks pretty much like an albatross where model planes are concerned. Then add the complexity of radio and control installation. There are plenty of ways to build a new plane that won't fly, and newbies today don't have enough knowledge base to see the defects.

Learning to fly is a big enough hurdle in itself. A newbie today deserves not to have to learn how to build a plane from a kit, or even how to rig a radio and control rods and linkages. When they get a true RTF, with batteries, charger and all pre-installed, they are getting a plane that guaranteed knows how to fly (provided it's not defective). Now if they screw up they know it was their flying technique. The plane was assembled right from the factory, so they can see how things are supposed to work.

Complete parts inventories mean that components can be purchased for the plane, not just as an AR500. You buy the component and it is a swap for the standard equipment in the original plane and you know that CG, power, wire plug compatibility, etc are not an issue. It's a tremendous advantage that keeps more people in the hobby.

I think the RTF is the only tool in the toolbox whose use can grow our hobby now. Unless we're prepared to replicate the school airplane clubs of the 1930's through 1950's, it's the only show in town that can stop the shrinkage and produce more fliers. More successful fliers means cheaper and better equipment for those of us who have grown beyond the needs that the RTF airplanes address. Many, perhaps most, new RC fliers are attempting, with no assistance at all, to join this hobby, which has the learning curve of a brick wall. With the proper equipment they can still succeed.

Too often we judge suitability by our own standards and requirements. We forget the time spent acquiring our knowledge and experience, and the differences between today and yesterday that require new methods if we are going to keep radio control as a living, growing hobby instead of a nursing home or mausoleum.

I strongly recommend that new, unassisted fliers pay the additional cost of starting out with a plane that is proven to teach hundreds how to fly, flies slowly enough for a beginner to have enough success to learn from (we learn from success, not from failure), is sturdy enough to survive the inevitable mishaps, is truly RTF (just charge and fly), has a complete parts supply inventory available at reasonable price and has at least one good sized thread in one of the major RC Internet forums for, by and about people learning to fly with that specific machine.

Those people almost can't HELP but succeed. Others, who choose another road CAN succeed but the odds are that they are just buying a ticket to another hobby in a couple of weeks. That used to be a price we could pay. It isn't any longer.

[dahawk]

Originally Posted by chipnkim

For myself I would like to learn to do both, I hope learning to fly will help me learn about what kind of plane to build. I'm taking this hobby on with my two kids, If they get the fly bug then I'm sure they will be willing to build. I to like the albatross but I'm not sure about the combined cost of build and equipment, compared to RTF.

I am far from adverse to ARF's or PNP's. After 30 years off, I started with the HZ Super Cub(now modded-out), then the Airfield Cessna 182,then PZ T-28. I like building my foamies where others may not and after all, I do understand it can be very frustrating if you don't have or want to spend the time. Even here in Texas, we have bad weather so it keeps me busy when I can't fly. RTF's can be tempting but remember you're paying for a cheap TX/RX.

Also, beware of some of the mega sites like Banana and Nitroplanes that tell you that a 70mm edf is perfectly fine for a begnner-NOT

If I were starting again, knowing what I know now(which isn't much) I would get a good TX like JR, Spectrum or Futaba and then buy an ARF/PNP or two. The Apprentice is another good trainer. You want to be on 2.4Ghz. If Electric is your choice as it was mine, I would standardize from the very beginning on connectors such as the XT, Deans or EC3. Pick one and stay with it. It's a pain if you have to solder bullet connectors. Get a good battery charger and balance board( I use the I-charger 206 w/350 watt PS but there are dozens of good ones out there). The cheapie chargers that come with some of the RTF's are not worth a penny.

I would definitely get a simulator like Real Flight or Phoenix. Can find good deals on ebay. Here you can practice maneuvers before taking them to the field. Invaluable investment.

You will crash. We all do. Don't worry. We fix em and get em back in the air.

Get your AMA card and join a local RC club. There's a plethera of knowledge out there and I've found most more than willing to share their experiences. After all, we're all in this together.

Going to be 70 today so I'm off to the field

Enjoy and have fun !


-Hawk

[amiteini]

I use sky surfer

[Greg74Mayer]

Originally Posted by AEAJR

This is the appraoch most of my students wish to follow. Learn to fly. THEN and ONLY THEN, if I like flying will I be interested in investing time in building a kit.

As to cost. There are two approaches. With today's cheap electroncis you can build these EPP trainers pretty cheap using equipment comparable to what you would get in an RTF.

Or you can build the kits because you want to put in better stuff and invtest for the future. So how much it costs to get started is up to you.

AEAJR...here is something that you may like. They are scratch built planes that cost around 10 bucks to build and electronics ran me around $30-$35 from "www.hobbypartz.com"

Here is the video where I got the idea..."MikeysRC" on Youtube. He has pdf plans you download and print out. Then I just followed this video for the first plane I built.

MikeysRC Sport Trainer Build #1 of 7

I do agree with a lot of the other guys on here...the HZ Super Cub is a GREAT trainer. I try to fly mine every day even though I have a hanger of more advanced planes I still enjoy flying the SC.

[yorkiepap]

Hey guys,
Personally, one of the reasons I bought the Dynam Hawksky was because of its ruggedness & ability to return to the air with little attention. I made mine a bit more resilient by using clear shipping tape on all the leading edges & double-layered covering on the nose. This sweetie can "take-a-lick'n" & "keep-on-tick'n". Here's a YouTube vid with some others....

Denny

Dynam Hawk Sky Success

[dahawk]

[QUOTE=yorkiepap;852453]Hey guys,
Personally, one of the reasons I bought the Dynam Hawksky was because of its ruggedness & ability to return to the air with little attention. I made mine a bit more resilient by using clear shipping tape on all the leading edges & double-layered covering on the nose. This sweetie can "take-a-lick'n" & "keep-on-tick'n". Here's a YouTube vid with some others....

Denny

That was one well produced video ! Truly enjoyed it !

[MaxAdventure]

for all the votes on supercub - try searching for 'supercub problem', I've read so many issues with the motor system and/or electronics, do you really want to start with problems on a first plane, or one you're learning with? Sure, they don't all have problems, how often do you play the lottery?

I'm a big believer in 4ch to start, but I admit if you want to train yourself, a good stable 3ch will be much better - just hopefully you don't teach yourself any bad habits if you going it alone.

I couldn't find ANY plane I thought was a good first trainer, so I design and kitted my own. I designed it to be easy and cheap enough any local youth program could pick up the parts for cheap and have success. It's tough and easy to repair, it's all about 14oz with a 48' wing. light weight/wing loading make for little damage (as mentioned already)

If you REALLY want tough - don't settle for less than EPP. I saw that albatross for the first time in this thread, it looks perfect! Don't forget the proven Mountian Models Magpie. Also, MS Composite makes a great little plane, the citabria 3ch trainer out of EPP.
http://www.mountainmodels.com/produc...roducts_id=221
http://www.mscomposit.com/airplanes/...epp-combo.html

bigger flies better, smaller tends to be tougher and will be cheaper to equip/fix.

[MaxAdventure]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

..

It's the only plane that I am familiar with that could blow the Champ and SuperCub right out of the #1 and #2 positions for learner airplanes.

Okay, I guess I have to get into why a true RTF plane is so essential to growing our hobby. Back in the day when chances were a kid would actually build a free flight plane or six at school and there was a lot of energy in teaching KIDS to build and fly, and there were no RTF planes, this wasn't an issue. .... You could actually be involved in flying, even though it wasn't your plane, while you surmounted the trials of building your first plane. It was a much simpler free flight plane that taught you the fundamentals of building and the fundamentals of flight. You weren't alone. You had help.

Even so, there were a lot of people who put a month or so into building for a flight of ten seconds, a fuselage-shattering crash and a swift exit from the hobby. But the equation worked. For every drop-out there were two more in the process of leaning.

Now the dynamics are different. Schools are so focused on standardized government tests that they no longer value hobbies as the vital pieces of education that they are. Free flight? It's dead. Look at the membership of the free flight societies and I'll bet their average age is over 65. Great people but they aren't the missionaries that high school age kids are. There's no money in free flight so there's no commercial promotion.
...

Learning to fly is a big enough hurdle in itself. A newbie today deserves not to have to learn how to build a plane from a kit, or even how to rig a radio and control rods and linkages.....
I think the RTF is the only tool in the toolbox whose use can grow our hobby now. Unless we're prepared to replicate the school airplane clubs of the 1930's through 1950's, it's the only show in town that can stop the shrinkage and produce more fliers....

Too often we judge suitability by our own standards and requirements. We forget the time spent acquiring our knowledge and experience, and the differences between today and yesterday that require new methods if we are going to keep radio control as a living, growing hobby instead of a nursing home or mausoleum.

Those people almost can't HELP but succeed. Others, who choose another road CAN succeed but the odds are that they are just buying a ticket to another hobby in a couple of weeks. That used to be a price we could pay. It isn't any longer.

Rokin' Robbins, I do like what you write, well done! Also, thanks for the link on the Albatross, I didn't realize that was available - looks great. I didn't see how complete it was or was not though..

Some comments and questions on your statement for the benefit of the thread:

Society seems to lean toward 'give me now', rather than putting the work in for a final product. I really don't see RTF being a big advantage other than to generate commerce for the 'give me' mentality.

This 'hobby' started with building flying models, then the radio hobbiests joined and started controlling the models without wires or letting them fly free. Way cool, but now we have a combination of THREE distinct hobbies; the amateur radio crowd, the model builder crowed (mostly made up by scale fanatics) and those that like to fly with their feed on the ground. So often people talk about the RC hobby like it's all about the flying. It isn't to everyone. I don't think people that want to 'grow the hobby' should lose sight of that.

Honestly, why does it matter or what need is there to 'grow the hobby', seriously? I don't get it. I build and fly because I love to, but I've learned and can't force my friends to - so why push people if they aren't self motivated?

[dahawk]

MaxAdventure,

On the HZ Super Cub? As an owner and after combing through every thread on every site I could find, I was prepared to make mods before I even purchased it. Yes, the stock radio w/ACT is a POS, yes, the brushed motor & ESC is a POS, yes, the battery chargeris a POS, yes, it's hard to take off from grass with the POS wheels. I knew all of this in advance such that my expectations were in alignment for the tasks ahead. 3 ARF's and 3 Scratchbuilt foamie parkjets later, "Old Nellie" still has a place close to my heart.

For a 3-axis high wing trainer with lots of dihedral, it was a good start. Easy to fly. I'm now prepping her for our float fly this summer. Add-on floats are plug and play. Now with 2.4, 480 BL, Ailerons, big wheels, flattened main wing, she's been a good plane for hands on learning about modifications, electrics, and other building techniques that have helped me with my other, higher performing models. She's taken her share of abuse but keeps coming back for more.

I'm sure there's several other first planes that are better in one aspect or another but IMHO, if you know what you're getting into, the SC is not a bad choice at all.

[MaxAdventure]

Originally Posted by dahawk

MaxAdventure,

On the HZ Super Cub? As an owner and after combing through every thread on every site I could find, I was prepared to make mods before I even purchased it. Yes, the stock radio w/ACT is a POS, yes, the brushed motor & ESC is a POS, yes, the battery chargeris a POS, yes, it's hard to take off from grass with the POS wheels. I knew all of this in advance such that my expectations were in alignment for the tasks ahead. 3 ARF's and 3 Scratchbuilt foamie parkjets later, "Old Nellie" still has a place close to my heart.

For a 3-axis high wing trainer with lots of dihedral, it was a good start. Easy to fly. I'm now prepping her for our float fly this summer. Add-on floats are plug and play. Now with 2.4, 480 BL, Ailerons, big wheels, flattened main wing, she's been a good plane for hands on learning about modifications, electrics, and other building techniques that have helped me with my other, higher performing models. She's taken her share of abuse but keeps coming back for more.

I'm sure there's several other first planes that are better in one aspect or another but IMHO, if you know what you're getting into, the SC is not a bad choice at all.

That's exactly my point, thank you!
This thread and some specific posts eluded to a 'works out of the box' package, I wanted to temper all the unsupported #1 votes for the cub with the type of information you provided.
I've flown a supercub, I know first hand how great they are, with the understanding of potential problems. And as tough as they are, if they were EPP they'd be far tougher. No intent to knock what seems to be THE favorite starter plane - I just think perspective is key!


A further comment for a possible 'best first plane', Aeajr is well known on about 5 million forums for touting sailplanes - there are a couple of great EPP electric sailplanes ARF or RTF's that are fantastic he mentioned. Really rewarding to start RC with a sailplane, larger, slow and majestic.

[chipnkim]

The responses have been great. I have been building a Blu-baby 42 with floats (pics soon) it is almost done. I have equipped it with the parts from my ill fated Dynam j3 cub. I hope this one is easier to fly, or crashes easier.

[MaxAdventure]

Originally Posted by chipnkim

... I have been building a Blu-baby 42 with floats (pics soon) it is almost done. I have equipped it with the parts from my ill fated Dynam j3 cub....

blu-baby is an awesome design. Simple and effective. Very similar to my 'ideal design' I did.

If you're 'having too much fun', you will probably want to look for better equipment. If you are serious about building and flying planes, don't get less than a 7ch IMHO, due to the huge possibilities it opens down the road beyond what a 6ch can do (it's all about the mix programming, memory, etc). Used are good and less expensive for a 'first' radio. Many are dumping great radios cheap to get the latest fancy release. I'm a fan of the DX7 as a basic starter radio and the options currently on the market for it.

[dahawk]

Originally Posted by MaxAdventure

blu-baby is an awesome design. Simple and effective. Very similar to my 'ideal design' I did.

If you're 'having too much fun', you will probably want to look for better equipment. If you are serious about building and flying planes, don't get less than a 7ch IMHO, due to the huge possibilities it opens down the road beyond what a 6ch can do (it's all about the mix programming, memory, etc). Used are good and less expensive for a 'first' radio. Many are dumping great radios cheap to get the latest fancy release. I'm a fan of the DX7 as a basic starter radio and the options currently on the market for it.

I totally agree. I was instructed early on to get the best radio and also the best battery charger setup I could afford. Most of the guys at our club fly Spektrum and JR. I'm a Futaba guy. Not totally the lone wolf but there are fewer of us around. It's kind of like the difference between Audi and Infiniti owners-LOL Both will swear up and down that one is better than the other. In my case, my boss gave me his Futaba 6EX as we was going to the top of the line model. I'm now at the limit of plane capacity(6) on mine. So, when I want to add a plane that's like one of the other 6 in terms of performance, #of channels, expo and mixing, I try to adapt. Not ideal but for some of my pusher prop jets, no big deal either. The F-22 and F4-Phantom perform pretty much the same way and both have the same basic elevon mix.

I like the Spektrum because they seem much more user friendly and the RX's are far less expensive than the Futaba's. Alot more variety in RX's too.

Cheers,

Hawk

[Turner]

This seems to have gotten a bit off track.

For the original poster, chipnkim, another foam kit plane with growing popularity is the Multiplex FunCub. It's a great flyer with optional flaps. Lots of building options. It is out of stock at many vendors but should be more widely available soon.

[dahawk]

Originally Posted by Turner

This seems to have gotten a bit off track.

For the original poster, chipnkim, another foam kit plane with growing popularity is the Multiplex FunCub. It's a great flyer with optional flaps. Lots of building options. It is out of stock at many vendors but should be more widely available soon.

Turner,

I like it. Nice big tail dragger with big wheels for grass fields. Loaded up, you're North of $200.00. Not too bad, but I know a lot of guys freak out after their first crash with their first plane , seeing their cash in a wreckage pile. This one seems pretty sturdy though. I actually trained on the gas club trainer( Hobbico AviStar) They make an electric version now.

[Rockin Robbins]

I agree that the thread has gotten off track. The question was what is the most durable beginner plane. I answered the question with the correct plane, the crashtesthobby.com Albatross and Penguin. I posted videos proving the point. They showed the Albatross flying very easily in wind conditions no Super Cub or other starter plane could easily tolerate. They showed ground encounters (crashes) that would rekit other supposedly tough starter planes and the pilot just tossed the Albatross back into the air for more crashes. I invited others to post videos of abusing their Super Cubs, Easy Stars, Bixlers, AXN Floater Jets or pretender du jour to the title of toughest beginner plane. There has been no response because no response is possible unless someone scratch builds An EPP trainer, and even that would only prove that it COULD be done, not kthat it HAS been done.

Yes, the planes subsequently mentioned have been great planes.Toughest? Not even close.

[Turner]

Allowing for personal tastes you'd have to agree that one size does not fit all. Those crash test planes look interesting but flight performance looks limited.

Multiplex FunCub - Ultimate All Purpose RC Plane

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=tEFG8SLw_W4

[Rockin Robbins]

The OP only asked what was the most durable. He didn't ask about flight characteristics, but the Albatross seems to fly just as slowly as a Slow Stick and slower than a Champ, even at many times the size and weight.

What's limited about its flight performance? Compare to any beginner plane that you wish. I'll bet it's slower than any of the Easy Star clones (and you can toss the AXN Floater Jet in there even though it isn't an Easy Star clone), if you call that limiting. They'll really go if you have the power, up to the 80 mph range. At that speed 3-channel aerobatics can be really thrilling. I'm not sure how fast you can drive an Albatross. I'll bet it's about as fast as a similarly powered Apprentice.

Like I said, all those other planes mentioned in the thread are great planes, but not a third as tough as the Albatross or Pelican and that was the question put by the original poster. Everything else is off-topic, and that was the gist of the post I was referring to.

Have you ever visited the crashtesthobby.com website? Do you know what their REAL business is? They build EPP full contact combat flying wings. I assure you that those planes are not limited except by the skill and foolhardiness of the pilot! Check some of their Uncivil War videos for heart stopping action you won't forget soon. Watch them pick up those crashed planes and toss them back into the sky too. A couple of their flying wings would be suitable for a naturally talented unassisted beginner. They certainly easily outperform any of the East Star clones and their friends.

Here's one that a beginner could fly.

YouTube Video

Anyways, that is the gentler side of their main business. Visit their website to check out the combat videos. They're pretty amazing.

[pattern14]

The S&B Komet, the "C" model in particular. Flies from novice to ace, vast amount of power options, also slope soars. Eats zagi's and strykers for breakfast, not made in China, and is still the best flying plane i have. The only glitch is the price, being made in Australia, but they pay for themselves after a few crashes that would total anything else. I have two of them, with countless crashes, and they still fly on rails in all kinds of weather. Maybe you have a U.S distributor over there, but not sure what the story is? Gee, hope I don't sound too one-eyed

[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by Turner

Allowing for personal tastes you'd have to agree that one size does not fit all. Those crash test planes look interesting but flight performance looks limited.

Multiplex FunCub - Ultimate All Purpose RC Plane

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=tEFG8SLw_W4

That's one great intermediate plane, but not one for an unassisted beginner. She's buddy box material. A little underpowered compared to my Slow Stick but climbs nicely and the near knife edge with the floats was impressive! Certainly she's a blast to fly, but would be a heartache for an unassisted beginner. For an assisted beginner you'd have to look hard to find better. Just from what I see there I like her better than the Apprentice.

I didn't see any rolling circles like this Radian can do with three channels:

YouTube Video

Naw! Strictly limited. Boring three channel!

[chipnkim]

The Fun Cub looks great. As far as off topic it all been great I,m just taking it all in. I have learned about more plane and places to buy them than i had found on my own. Thanks