Bobsav

Are two wing planes harder to fly that single wing ?
Sorry for the dumb question.
Bob

jetmech05

Not harder, different. They slow quicker on approach so it's easier to stall one. Lots of drag with all the braces for the wings. But if you keep power on and fly the plane down you'll be ok. It'll teach you throttle management

hookedonrc

It's a legitimate question if you have never flown one. On a bipe, I tend to keep my speed up on approach and fly it to the ground. If you don't, some can fly like a brick if too slow.

Bobsav

Thanks for the input, appreciated.

Let me try another one on ya
.
Are there any big "3D type/looking" planes that fly slow and easy like most trainers do ?
Bob

TomCrump

Not to my knowledge.

Trainers have a self correcting quality. 3-D airframes go where you point them, doing exactly what you "tell" them to do. They also react to control inputs much faster than the average trainer.

j.duncker

My Feedback: (2)

There are a few like the Hanger 9 Tango 40 http://www.hangar-9.com/Products/Def...ProdID=HAN4600 or the ModelTech Magic Fun fly that are easy to fly and land. The trick is to set up dual rates with 25% to 35% movement on flying controls for the LOW rate set up.

Re Biplanes some are hard to fly and land like a Pitts Special esp. the Kyosho one others can be real ***** cats gah hit by the dumb profanity filter OK real kitty kats. .

jester_s1

Like monoplanes, biplanes are very variable in how they fly. The most ornery of the bunch are the detailed WWI scale models. They are draggy and often heavily loaded, and with a wing that tends to tip stall and a short fuselage that doesn't forgive ground handling errors they can really test your abilities. Then there are the classic sport biplanes like the Sig Hog and the Balsa USA Phaeton II. I have an original Phaeton and it's easier to fly well than my Cub is.

JohnBuckner

My Feedback: (1)

OK first your original question on biplanes Yes there are some very easy to fly biplanes and two examples are the Sig Hog Bipes or the Cunningham Lazy Aces in fact the lazy Ace is virtually the Kadet Senior of the biplane world. Now two prime examples of biplanes to avoid as a first bipe are any version of either the Ultimates or Pitts and their are many others.

As already posted by the fellows all biplanes suffer from excess drag and the throttle/pitch control must be managed as real flight controls and this will be very new to anyone just coming off a trainer. This is an additional skill that must be learned and that's why biplanes are never recommended as a primary trainer.

Now to your second question in your second post as to are there any 3Dish looking airplanes that can work like a trainer and the answer is Yes a few very few but with a caviat or warning. J.Duncker the moderator mentioned a few in his post above. These airplanes are generally .25 to .40 sized and are non scale types and have very fat wings (thick). The one I believe that is near to top of the few is the Sig something extra and yes they actually can be setup and prepared as a basic trainer. Will they fly like a trainer? Certainly not but they can be used as such if and only if you are willing to find a mentor/instructor and to work with him and not go off on your own.

If you are the type who will not work with a mentor and insist on self training then that type of airplane will not live long for you. Its the strong compulsion to have something that looks sexy or like a P-51, Ultimate, B-17, Extra or Cessna and on and on as a first airplane, that is the major reason so many fail and move on.

John

Bobsav

Ok, thanks for all the great answers. I'm not new to the hobby but last time I flew, proportional controls were just hitting the market. I even built the "heathkit" version.
I.m going to Florida for the winter and plan to revive some old planes I have. Hopefully my thumbs will cooperate.
Hopefully my old experience will kickin and I'll be on my way with some newer planes and technology.
That's why I as asking about the "3D" type plane, I would like to get something big , that doesnt need lighting reflexes.
Thanks
Bob

Hinckley Bill

My Feedback: (569)

Hello Bob,

I tell everyone that if a person could train on a H-9 Ultimate Biplane they'd be flying by themselves in no time......I truly believe that it's one of the easiest, most forgiving planes I've ever flown.

It's big, so it's not squirrely like a lot of the 40-60 size planes I see folks trying to learn on, but giving up after one to many meetings with the ground

It goes where your inputs tell it to go......nuff said.

It can be setup for very mild performance or rock-star all out aerobatics.

Will it compete with the ultra-3D planes out there....no, but then again I enjoy flying mine like a real airplane anyway

Bill

larryak

My Feedback: (32)

Good thread. As usual I'm placing my money on John Buckners advice. I am very surprised that noone so far has explained/complained about the time consumeing assembly/disassembly time spent on a bipe out at the field. Bill H if you can dig out of the snowbanks up there come on out to Az & we'll get you on a 3D buddy box. Never know, it may just "relight your fire". Well done helping out the new bipe guy guys.

CafeenMan

Until a biplane is trimmed out properly, a lot of them tend to jump off the ground very quickly and can be pointed straight up if you're not quick on the sticks. Someone not ready for that or with low stick time can easily over-control or mis-control and put it right back in the ground.

Even though I can fly pretty much anything, unless the model is a simple stick or trainer type, I usually let a better pilot do my test flights just because he doesn't have the hours invested in the build and will be calmer about it than I will. Plus my test pilot flies every week and I sometimes go years between trips to the field and many times when I make it back to the field it's with new planes.

kork

My Feedback: (65)

and some call them "flying manholes" I guess its how they fly without power applied. I think there a blast!

JohnBuckner

My Feedback: (1)

Hey Bob thinks for coming back, I derive great satisfaction in helping out returnees. If you were flying reeds or perhaps various single channel before proportional I would greatly recommend if you still wanted to fly biplanes that you look for a one of the Cunningham Lazy Aces. Either one already built up or build it yourself as plans are not hard to come by. This airplane is ideal and it is quite large for a biplane. If you had done no flying at all in those long years then by all means connect up with a mentor to stand by on a buddy cord. Heck these days we even have cordless buddy systems and I use these exclusively, the fellows love it. No one can even tell if you are on the cord or not

Larryak excellent point on transport. That is the very biggest negative always for biplanes. They are a hugh pain in the butt, in most cases for field assembly. It is probably the biggest deterent. I have resisted far to many years and always did it the hard way but it gets so old. I still have one rather large biplane and it is the GP arf Stearman that I use for an aerotow tug, flying it pretty often. Heck I finally broke down and bought me a new trailer several weeks now and it is proving such a joy to be able to transport some of the larger bulkier stuff assembled or partially assembled, not just the biplane but the seaplanes also which are also tricky assemblys.

John

stevegauth30

Really? You think the ultimately are on the more difficult side? My first bipe was an ultimate and was as tame as a kitten. I've had a few other ultimately that were the same. Interesting. Maybe it is, and because that's what the standard was to me it just doesn't seem it. As for the pitts, huh, that's a different story. Very short coupled airframe.

JohnBuckner

My Feedback: (1)

Sorry you disagree Steve. but yes I think most of the Ultimates to complete new folks whom have never flown RC are an inappropriate and as it turned out someone who has not flown RC since "Proportional controls were just hitting the market". That's perhaps forty years ago so yes Steve my opinon remains the same any of the ultimates are not really a good choice.

John

stevegauth30

I'm certainly not disagreeing with you john. It's your opinion. I just had a slightly different experience with mine. Maybe I got lucky. But the difference too was that I had been flying for a couple of years when I built my first ultimate, not off for fourty. That probably makes all the difference in the world.

jester_s1

I'll make the same suggestion that I make fairly often here, and that is that Bobsav get himself an Ugly Stick and an instructor along with a 6-8 channel 2.4ghz radio and get to work. Sticks can be nice and tame for training, they can be set up pretty wind if you want, the are excellent in the wind, and (often most importantly) they are easy to fix. Yes, they are ugly, but all trainers get ugly with time!

CafeenMan

An airplane is only as ugly as a person builds it. This is the one I'm working on now - Knight Stik.

I think it's a nice looking plane. It's a lot more of a hot rod than a regular Ugly Stik though.

stevegauth30

Ya don't see that every day. A pimped out stick with a wankel.cool.

CafeenMan

Actually, I do see it every day. The ailerons are in my lap right now. They came to me for pets.

Rob2160

Very nice looking model, I think there is something very cool about a model plane that "looks like a model plane" and doesn't pretend to be anything else..

Brings back lots of happy teenage memories when I see them.

JeffinTD

If you wanted to experiment with a biplane on the cheap, The Wingsmaker has a foam reciever ready one that runs on 3s1300.

I would make sure you are fully comfortable with a regular 4 chan trainer, including inverted and basic aerobatics first, though.

As as far as a large 3D looking plane with gentle flying characteristics, it depends on what you mean by large, but the Reactor 1.60 is very forgiving and flies like a big foamy.

Again, get fully comfortable with a trainer, and maybe a tail dragging sport plane first.

Hinckley Bill

My Feedback: (569)

With the weather up here turning to normal 'nasty' winter I may just take you up on that offer.....I've always marveled at the skill set of 3-D pilots, their response times are awe inspiring and the maneuvers they put their aircraft thru....well what can one say but WOW

rgburrill

My second airplane was a Gee Bee Tiger Moth. It had about a 42 inch wingspan so didn't need to be disassemble to transport. That made set up at the field very quick. The real Tiger Moths were trainers and didn't have ailerons on the upper wings so that reduced their quickness and made them more gentle.