jester_s1

The answer to that AllModesR/C is really dependent on the plane. Some planes, probably most planes, need a little bit of rudder held during the turns to be coordinated properly due to the adverse yaw effect of the ailerons. You can trim out adverse yaw with aileron differential, but for many aerobatic and sport planes that will give you proverse yaw in vertical lines which most of us find more difficult to compensate for. Planes that are particularly prone to adverse yaw (like Cubs) will look better in a turn if the rudder is applied at the same time that ailerons are and held in the whole time, while planes that aren't so prone to it will turn just fine with a little bit of rudder added during the aileron deflection and then stopped once the plane is banked and you've stopped using the ailerons.

AllModesR/C

This helps, thanks.

vertical grimmace

My Feedback: (1)

One type of aircraft you really experience the adverse yaw are the WW1 era. I have a Fokker DR1 triplane that actually prefers to lead with the rudder. You initiate the turn with the rudder, and just use the ailerons to maintain proper angle of bank. If you just try to fly it around with the ailerons, like most RC planes, it will skid, nose high thru the turns.

While co-ordinating turns is important with full scale, you will not find it necessary with the majority of the models you fly, unless you get into scale, and even then, only certain designs require rudder in the turns.

kiwibob72

While in one aspect, relating to responsiveness of these types of planes, I agree fully with the notion in that the 'general responsiveness' of these aircraft can be too much for a beginner-intermediate pilot to expect to fly successfully - with an emphasis on "general responsiveness" here.
Where I disagree is with the notion that a pilot of that level cannot use these types of planes, when they are set-up correctly for the pilot in question.
Modern programmable radios allow for reduced throws and increased expo at a simple flick of a switch, which when used correctly, can turn a scale 3D/aerobatic monster into an extremely stable and easy plane to fly, as it is a known FACT that extra's, yak's, edge's and alike track extremely well, have rather low wing loadings, fly at slow speed very well and land very easily due to their float-ability when coming in for a landing. After all, how often do we hear people describe the flight characteristics of these types of models in as far as they "handle like a big trainer" - and I'd be surprised if anyone who's been around long enough has not heard that statement before if they are in any way honest about it!
Where they can go wrong for the newer pilot all comes back to that "general responsiveness" comment I mad earlier, and how a lot of (most) people only ever set them up to as responsive as possible with their HUGE control surfaces and massive throw angles, as it is that mindset that will undo a newer pilot, where a thoughout and through one who is open minded, can make themselves a very good flying plane that allows for infinite progression possibilities by just increasing throws as they grow.
But again, this all comes back to setting a given aircraft up to a level that reflects the skill level of the pilot who is looking to fly it.
(A friend of mine with an aeronautics degree on his wall and well over 20 years + of RC heli and plane flying under his belt is always amazed how people who have been around as or even longer than himself, cannot fathom this rather simple understanding that the planes radio setup has as much effect on a planes fly-ability as the plane's design itself does)

JohnBuckner

My Feedback: (1)

Actually we are quite in agreement with everything you have posted Kiwibob. My reference above to the thickness ratio remains a simple way that is seldom mentioned in these types of forums as a very simple way for new folks to make decisions on what to expect from any given design that may be considered in the climb up the airmanship ladder

John

jester_s1

On the wing thickness topic, we also haven't taken into consideration that airfoil selection is anything but consistent from one manufacturer to the next. So one Cap 232 may be extremely snappy (prone to tip stall) challenging even experienced pilots to land it safely until they get used to its quirks, while another may have a thicker and more blunt airfoil that takes a lot of those tendencies away. And, of course, weight is a consideration as well. Actually it's wing loading, but when comparing planes of the same size weight is a good enough term. My portly Midwest Extra 300 with the Zenoah up front isn't as pilot friendly as the one CompArf makes that is probably 3 pounds lighter.
To contribute something substantive to the conversation though, I'm not fan of beginners going straight from trainers to aerobats. Even some of the more docile aerobats are still designed to spin and snap well, which means that it's at least possible to to tip stall them. That plus the neutral handling characteristics can get newer pilots in trouble quickly. I've been in the hobby long enough to watch a few guys get started and be successful and a few get in and quit just as quickly as they started. The latter group usually tries to progress too quickly. One I saw went from a trainer to a Cub to a 50cc Yak 54 in the space of about 2 months. He never successfully completed a flight in his Cub, and he tore the whole bottom out of his Yak on its third flight. He wasn't a good enough pilot yet to fly those planes and the inevitable result followed. Another went from a trainer to an Ultimate Biplane and took the Biplane home in a trash bag after a highly entertaining 3 minute flight during which he never truly had control of it. In both cases, experienced pilots did the maiden flights and made setup suggestions, so the planes were ok. If these guys had have been a little more patient and progressed to an Ugly Stick or a 4 Star, they would have probably done fine instead of being disappointed.

vertical grimmace

My Feedback: (1)

I mainly fly scale warbirds, and they certainly have their quirks, and things that make them tricky. Especially on the ground.

I keep a couple of different sport planes around to keep me sharp on certain aspects of flight. I have a Kadet Sr. that I oriented as a taildragger. This helps practice the rollout and handling of a WW1 biplane etc, which can be tricky.

Then for just general flying, I have a Sun Fli 5 I am flying. Essentially a Kaos. It is .60 sized and of fairly high performance., A higher stall speed, fully symmetrical airfoil, and retracts. This airplane keeps my depth perception in practice, and really helps on landing approaches and such.

I have found that when I go a season or 2 only flying my scale models, my flying skill drops off. These 2 airplanes have helped me a lot to stay on top of my flying, without having the extra pressure of handling the more complicated models all of the time.

kiwibob72

Hope I didn't come across too harsh or anything, as that was not my aim.

Getting them (scale aerobatic planes) or any other plane setup correctly to work correctly and at a suitable level for the 'pilot in question' is often a key focus that a lot of people forget to take into account (and often the hard bit for those not in the know).
That said, it still amazes me how many persons I've seen who have been around for a lot longer time than myself at 43yo, state how well aerobat's fly, track, land etc on one hand, and in the other hand state that a good 'intermediate' pilot should not look at them as they are just way too responsive for them to handle.
As for the whole tail dragger thing, perhaps it's because I started on CP heli's, but I have NEVER physically landed anything other than aerobatic tail dragger models. Is there really that much difficulty in landing them over a 'normal' tricycle landing gear setup, as I've never really got or understood that whole 'tail dragger difficulty' deal?. (that said, my aerobatic planes and the P51 Mustang I have all have wider and more stable landing gear, and are nothing like a Spitfire or anything, or is it the rudder control heli's teach you that I'm missing??)

TomCrump

Most of my models are tail draggers, with fuselage mounted main gear. I don't find them difficult to land, or control on the ground.

They may be slightly more difficult for a novice, in that they require some "up elevator" to insure good ground contact for steering the tail wheel.

The "hard" part being to understand when to apply the elevator control. Too early, and the model could leap back into the air. Too late, and a ground loop may be the result.

Skycat80

I consider myself a beginner as well. I started flying last year with a Tower trainer with a .46 on it. I have around 10 flights on it, but found myself too scared to try different things with it. I just really, really didn't want to crash it. I picked up one of Tower's 40" electric foamies. I started with the P-51 mustang and found it to be a great little plane. Due to the low cost and the ease of repair with foam, I quickly got much more comfortable doing rolls, loops, hammer heads, and starting to experiment with inverted flying. I really had a blast with the little mustang. Then I picked up one of the Tower Corsairs. This plane flew so much different than the mustang. Compared to the mustang, it was much more aerobatic and seemed to require much more responsive thumbs. It wasn't long before I had 10 2200 batteries and was logging 5 to10 flights a day last summer after work. I've found my flying skills and confidence have both grown quite a bit from the foamies.
I quickly got the itch for a bigger warbird and built my first ARF (VQ Mig 3). I was able to get one successful maiden in on it before the season ended and fell in love with tail draggers and warbirds. I also discovered that I really need to work on my landings and gain experience taxiing and taking off with a tail dragger so I picked up a Flyzone beaver. My thought here was that this was the best of both worlds as it is a tail dragger and has flaps to work with. So far this winter, I've logged around 60 flights on it without issue. Constantly doing touch and goes and experimenting with flaps.
My point here is that by getting into an electric foamie, I feel like I have really begun to polish my flying skills without fear that I'm going to smash up my more expensive balsa plane because of a stupid mistake. I know I will, at some point, smash plenty of planes as I progress in this hobby, but if I saved even just one by being more comfortable and polishing my flying skills, it's worth it to me.
Although, after just finishing building my second kit this winter, I would be capable of repairing one, it isn't nearly as much of a concern with a foam plane.
I'm not, by any means, saying that the way I went about this was the right was to do it. I'm just telling the OP what seemed to really make the difference for me and helped boost my flying skills and my confidence.

vertical grimmace

My Feedback: (1)

You really do not have to crash your planes. Granted, if you are pushing yourself with new aerobatic moves etc. , that may increase your risk, but you can always do them higher up, or with a plane you are not that concerned with, like the foamie. Which was a great move by the way

I can say, after flying ( a lot, not just casually) for the last 30 years, the number one reason why RC airplanes crash is poor maintenance with the RX battery. It is the main failure point that I have seen.

foodstick

Allmodes, in response to the rudder turns, all planes very. I have some that need no rudder..and others that don't turn good without a constant battle of mixing the rudder and ailerons. This is one thing that con make the hobby tough/fun depending on your tastes for mastering different types of airplanes.

I haven't read every post in this thread but my standards or feelings on when its good to move up is when .
1. You don't feel you are a threat to the safety of others... I didn't feel that way for many years.. but I am overly cautious about it.
2. When you can accept a large loss in money, you should never gamble with money you can't afford to loose ! hahahah