CrateCruncher

My Feedback: (1)

How would you design a better trainer than whats currently offered?

iron eagel

Something that was capeable of very slow speed flight, and could be tuned from a basic trainer, to a basic aerobatic trainer. Perhaps with a second wing for the high performance version raher than using add-ons and alike.
Another consideration would be a four channel airplane which could be flown indoors, in limited space, so wind and weather was not a factor in learning to fly; and also allow for more pratice time.

Lomcevak Duck

My Feedback: (14)

How would I design the perfect trainer?

Maybe I would quit designing overly complex trainers with high wing loadings and far too many functions and teach basic flying skills with a basic airplane that was not cost prohibitive, did not require a high performance engine or too many servos. Maybe one that was self correcting, easy to build, relaxing to fly, and simple to set up. Something so basic that a beginner could do it...

I would design a three channel Quaker. Or maybe a two channel .049 powered glider.

I would market them as a kit or an ARF, and couple them with the best radio gear available, like a two or three channel FM radio with standard servos. I might even recommend high end engines, like an OS two cycle.

fireguy01

My Feedback: (11)

well i always liked the telemaster especially the senior version. big barn door ailerons. slow floater. with flaps it will land practically standing still into a slight headwind. and it looks good.

HighPlains

My Feedback: (1)

I would start with the Sig LT-40, it has the right area and decalage. But it needs the tank moved higher to better align with the needle valve. The other change would be to change the fuselage to balsa, along the lines of the old Andrews box-loc fuselage designs. More rugged by far.

iron eagel

I would second that!
The Lt-40 does have many things already going for it...

highhorse

My Feedback: (2)

It's already here. If U haven't already, look at the Hangar 9 P-51-PTS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I've been in the hobby, like many of you for 30+ years. I thought that trainers had to be boxy and look like, well, trainers. My father was having, uh, issues learning to fly well. I got him the PTS out of a sort of desperation and here's what I found:

It only costs $400 RETAIL (!!) RTF. Read again, RTF, NOT ARF! JR SIX CHANNEL (!) programmable radio, already installed. Strong .46, already test run and installed. Even the mixtures are preset and adjustable only in a nearly fool-proof range. Comes with flight-sim software and a USB cable that connects the JR Xmitter to your PC !! It is initially flown with a 3 blade prop, N.A.C.A. droop tips, and the flaps bolted in the down postion, all making for a hi-lift, slow, and impossible to stall trainer.

As the student improves, the airplane is INCRIMENALLY hopped up and morphed into something totally different. First swap the prop for a 2-blade. Then move the flaps into the up position. Then finally remove the droop tips. Now U have a hot little ARF that wil do everything you could ask of a -51. The snaps, especially (inside and out), are incredible.

If U ding it there are spare components available. If U destroy it, which is difficult cus it's built like a freaking TANK, U can buy the ARF version for cheap and swap over your components. When U out-grow it (you won't, it's too much fun) U still have a darn nice radio and engine to put into whatever U want!

Did I mention it only costs $400 ??? That's retail. Lot's of 'em on EBAY for $350 and free shipping.

I'm telling you, I've owned/flown box-trainers, a Jet, and lots of stuff in between. I just LOVE this little airplane. Best bang for buck I have EVER seen, and I can't say enuff good about it.

Don't confuse this with the F-22 PTS though. That one is too heavy and should be avoided..................

Nathan King

"Perfect" doesn't exist. In aviation, especially aircraft design, everything is a compromise. I think what is out there currently is pretty darn good.

Lomcevak Duck

My Feedback: (14)

What I meant by 'best radio gear available' was 'best for a trainer' like a simple inexpensive FM radio. And exotic engines like an OS two cycle was meant toungue-in-cheek. I have flown the PTS Mustang, and the perfect trainer I was thinking about wasn't anything like a $400 Mustang. More along the lines of $200 for a true trainer, basic engine, and no nonsense radio. Your mileage may vary.

CrateCruncher

My Feedback: (1)

How about a wing that could be shortened. After you learn to fly pretty well you unscrew the molded wing tips and saw off a bay on each end and replace the tips.

Gluing the wing halves together is critical step and a lot of dihedral is nice starting out but can be a killjoy down the road. What if you bolted the wing halves together with a wedge spacer in the middle. When you want to lose the dihedral you remove the spacer.

Just rambling..

iron eagel

Not bad ideas...

CrateCruncher

My Feedback: (1)

Your post is what got me thinking about it. Heck, when I learned to fly we didn't have flight sims or buddy boxes. Just finding someone to teach you was tough. Today people go through the basic trainer phase much faster. Having two planes in one seems like it would give the product an advantage in the marketplace.

I remember a thread a while back that concluded the old Bridi Trainer with the symmetrical wing was one of the best because you could do a lot more with it as you advanced.

dolanosa

AFAIK, the current trainer designs are all good. Whether it's boxy like an Avistar (excellent basic and basic aerobatic trainer IMHO) or the P-51 (taught a couple of n00bs with that too) that highhorse mentioned, the best trainer is still a good teacher.

Tango Juliet

I have two opinions on this. The first being that any of the new flight simulators are the perfect trainer because for the price you can crash infinitely, adjust atmospheric conditions to whatever suits you're desire, and fly a multitude of different aircraft with different flying qualities. My other opinion is that Sig has already produced the "perfect" trainer. The Kadet Senior ARF, or the Kadet Senior kit which can be modified with relative ease for three axis control, tail dragger gear, stronger engines, etc., etc.

And I'm not a paid representative of any of the flight sim mfg's. (wish I was though)

fox59

form my own experience, 2 designs come to mind, neither one was "perfect":

The orignal Falcon 56 with 3 channels and a .19. Tail and wing was rubber banded on. When built per the plans/kit, it weighed around 3.5 lbs. Modern radio gear would reduce this some. Ground handling was only fair as no steerable nose wheel, but hand launching was easy. ROG still possible even with small engine.

The other is Bill Northrop's Apprentice (May '68 MAN, methinks). Basically a large (72") high wing cabin design that is as stable as a free flight model. will fly with a .19 on 3 channels, around 3-3.5 lbs. Slow, gentle flyer. Plans are still available. I am building up both of these currently.

apprentice is a bit big to fit in a small car. I would change some of the fusalage construction some, but plan to leave it as is for this build.

CrateCruncher

My Feedback: (1)

Agree with that first part! The simulator is, so far, the best trainer ever made. I'm not a "gifted pilot" like some of my R/C buds. Everything had to be learned the hard way through stick time. Before sims I never could seem to get much past a certain point of proficiency because I would crash and lose skill as I went back to constructing my next victim.

But, there will probably always be a need for a real-world trainer. Some things just aren't the same in a sim. Distractions of other pilots, nervousness, sudden gusts, glare, etc. Some folks tell me they just can't orient themselves in a virtual space without constantly seeing the ground in a sim.

Regarding the second part, how does a plane that doesn't have ailerons (Kadet Senior) make a perfect trainer? Maybe my info is a bit out of date..

Tango Juliet

The new Kadet Senior ARF does have ailerons (and less dihedral), and the kit can easily be modified for them. Do a search of Kadet Senior and see how many variations have been made out of this one design.

crasherboy

Lets look at this this way. I am talking full scale now. If you were wanting to learn to fly full scale,would you choose a piper cub or would you go for a Cesna 180 with the hotest engine you could find and wings that were made for high speed,and hot landings. If it were me ,I would choose the Piper cub. Slow and easy ,etc. Time to correct mistakes,and not end up on cemetery hill on a permanent basis. If I remember right,my first lessons were in an Aeronca,and I lived through it to.

Lomcevak Duck

My Feedback: (14)

I'd go with the Cub. A more advanced plane won't make you a better pilot until you're ready for it.

BMatthews

There's another way to look at this. The differences between a good trainer and a first level sport plane can be as simple as the amount of control throws and the location of the CG. There's no reason why you can't design a high wing or shoulder wing model with a medium amount of dihedral and surfaces that are a little larger than most commonly used for trainers and then just limit the travel. Then set up the CG to a more conservative location that requires using some noticable amount of up trim and shim in a couple or three degrees of extra downthrust. Make it a little larger than some models but not too extreme. Power it with an engine that will fly it nicely on the wing but has enough power to climb well at a 30 to 35 degree angle without stalling or being near a stall. That's still pretty high performance but not so high it'll rip the wings off and enough that the student can accelerate out of trouble.

The wing for such a model can easily be a nice low camber "semi symetrical" airfoil like a 2415 or so that will fly stunts later on quite well.

One past the training time increase the control throws, move the CG back to a much more aggresive location, remove the downthrust shim and trim out the up elevator back to neutral or slightly negative to restore a level 1/2 power cruise and go crazy. A more powerful engine may be wanted to really light 'er up.

There's really no need to reduce the dihedral in this case since this isn't intended to be a hot 3D style model. It's just the one that will hot rod around the sky and teach the pilot to do loops, inverted, rolls and combos of these things. And contrary to popular opinion 3 to 4 degrees of dihedral won't make a shoulder or semi high wing model want to roll out of inverted like it was a broom handle in your palm that you're trying to balance.

iron eagel

Good point!

The larger throws do make a big difference and one thing I forgot totally about was the thrust angle. That alone can make a major difference in how the plane flies and trims out!

CrateCruncher

My Feedback: (1)

Perhaps not but it just screams "training wheels" to all the other pilots reviewing the troops on the flight line. What new pilot doesn't want to have the big boy plane ASAP?

Lomcevak Duck

My Feedback: (14)

What new pilot doesn't want to fly the big boy airplane asap? A smart one. One that might learn to fly and stick with the sport longer than two crashed planes.

BMatthews

Ah, but now we're talking more about fashion than reality.

And some dihedral left in can really be your friend if you know how to use it. I've flown Goldberg Eagles that were set up for training with reduced throws and by using rudder with the ailerons and just the right speed and nose up angle got them to snap roll and fast roll in the most satisfying manner. After the owner pulled his jaw off the grass he was all a'giggle and wondering how I made his "trainer" do all that "stuff". There's a lot more to aerobatics than just flying a modern 3D design and you can get the most odd designs to do some amazing stuff if you play to the advantages and avoid the disadvantages.

highhorse

My Feedback: (2)

Check the batteries in you slide-rule!!

WHAT are you going to put in the air for $200 ????? Even a basic 4ch radio ($100) and engine ($75) is gonna kill $175 . That's $25 you have left for the airframe !?!?! Oh, and a flight sim costs $100. So let's see $100+$75+$100+$75 (for the unassembled box trainer)=$350.[]

OK, OK, even if you could, AT FIRST, save $200 by buying a box trainer with a BASIC radio and BASIC 40 (which U can't).......this "savings" would be what's known as a "false economy".

The reason you are TRAINING in the first place is to move up, right? So when Ur "trained" on the box trainer (which you've crashed several times and bought new wings or fuses for cus you were trying to cheap out and not purchase a flight sim too), Ur gonna have what? Ur gonna have a crappy box trainer that u don't want anymore , equipped with a marginal radio and engine. So U strip the radio and engine out and put em in a what? Another $200-$250 ARF capable of more advanced manuevers. And now U have $400-$450 in a potentially decent ARF except for that marginal engine and 4 channel featureless radio. (!!!!!)[][]

And if U want to upgrade to a radio that has a few bells and 6Ch, or upgrade the engine to say, a schnuerle ported .46....well, that's ANOTHER $200. Now you're at $450-$800 to wind up right where you could have started from in the first place with the PTS P-51. [][:@]

What the heck is a "true" trainer? And do you consider the 2 extra channels to grow into to be "nonsense"? Or by "nonsense" are you referring to adjustable endpoints, dual rates, and expo?

Hey, I'm not trying to throw $$ away here on anything exotic. I'm trying to save the theoretical newcomer to the hobby $$, effort, and grief. Not just in his first week of the hobby, but in his whole first year. The PTS takes U from an slow and idiot (stall-spin) proof trainer to a smoking stand-off scale 51 in one purchase, because with the staged tweaks it's like buying AT LEAST 5 airplanes in one box.[8D]

Seriously. Why would you steer anyone to anything else unless U just wanted them 1) to go a certain route cus that's the way YOU did it back in the day, or 2) want 'em to waste $$.

Take a student thru ALL of the stages with this thing and you'll see what I mean. I sure wish it had been around when I was learning and buying MY box trainer(s) with lawn-cutting money!!

As always, just my two dollars. (inflation)