ratshooter

I have taught several guys to fly. One had a PT-40 and another had a Goldberg Eagle II. Both planes made pilots out of the owners pretty quick. We didn't have any buddy boxes. We just passed the transmitter back and forth. That worked fine. I have also taught on sport models like a Scooter racer. And A Smith Mini Plane. Pretty much whatever plane someone already owned was used for a trainer. Turn the controls down and about any plane can be a trainer.

When I started flying back in 1978 the guys at the field recommended a Das Little Stik for my trainer. So I bought a kit (no Arfs then) and in a week or so had a plane. When I went to the field my "instructor" mostly flew my plane for me. As soon as I had the basic concept down I would go during the week to a nearby park and fly by myself. The plane got a little beat up but was always repairable. I learned to fly with a plane that today would only be suggested for a second plane.

So a trainer can be something other than a flat bottomed airfoil model. It really comes down to the instructor and his ability to teach. But there is absolutely nothing wrong with a dedicated trainer type model. I like flying trainers and have a Tower Trainer I fly all the time. It is the plane I take to the field most often.

ratshooter

Here is my new plane I just finished today. It should make an excellent trainer. Flat bottom airfoil. 17oz wingloading. OS LA-46 engine and tough as nails. I have built these before. This is not a Balsa USA model.

Tom Nied

If I could add. A plane that can be built and repaired easily. I learned on a Kadet Senior that I built. Still have it and in great condition. My second plane was an Avistar. Flew the heck out of that plane. The Avistar is a great plane to learn on. Next was a SPAD Debonair. I know people are groaning, what a dog. But with a Thunder Tiger Pro .46 and built with a flat wing, I had a blast flying it. I like leading edges with bright colors like yellow or red. So lots of possibilities. I got to admit, electric arf's or rtf's offer good possibilities to learn also.

HighPlains

My Feedback: (1)

I doubt too many RC pilots truly understand the aeronautical principles behind a trainer, or the physical implementation. Otherwise, threads like this would not be written and we would have been flying the perfect trainer for decades. On top of that with electronic stability systems and electric power, it may be a mood point.

After flying RC models for decades (I used to train pilots with Ken Willard at the old Pioneer Club through much of the 80's), training hundreds of students, and building a few designs and flying almost everything flown on nitro I have concluded that the Sig LT-40 comes the closest to being that trainer. Two deficits in the design are lite ply in the fuselage (balsa and aircraft plywood are always better in a well design model), and the fuel tank is mounted too low - which is typical for most trainers that attempt to look like a damn Cessna.

As far as the aerodynamics of high wing trainers, the airfoil is not that important. I can get the same effect from a fully symmetrical airfoil as a flat bottom. The self righting effect is from decalage and balance, which makes a design very speed sensitive (exactly like a full size private plane). Flat bottom designs are primarily for ease of building, but you can find some pretty good semi-symmetrical airfoils, somewhat modified with a flat surface behind the spar to be easy to build.

As far as dihedral, too much really punishes a pilot, while some is usually good so you can still steer the airplane around if the ailerons quit. The old Goldberg Eagle, Goldberg Falcon series were as good as the Sig designs in this regard.

With the new foam trainers, I have seen a few that fly OK, but I still prefer glow - old age perhaps.

jester_s1

You bring up stability systems, which hasn't been discussed yet. I'm really a fan of people learning without them, but the floodgate is open so we may as well embrace it. A real benefit though is that they can add self-righting to pretty much any plane. With a system like SAFE, I could see lightly loaded Ugly Sticks becoming very good trainers. They can land just as slowly as a Kadet and handle the wind so well. As an added bonus, they make great aerobatic trainers once a pilot has gotten basic flying down.

HighPlains

My Feedback: (1)

Ugly Stiks, especially light ones, are about the finest sport planes there are for the novice pilot. Great flying, easy access, side mounted engine, constant chord wing, tricycle or conventional gear, rugged design, and ugly enough that the pilot does not fear flying it. 40 to 60 sizes are best for flying in the wind. I always hated finding out that the pilot was in love with his airplane, they are tools to learn the basics, and fearing the landing has slowed or stopped many new pilots.

jester_s1

Not to mention they are ridiculously easy to fix when something goes wrong. There are no rounded sides to replicate, no windows or cowling, and complicated shapes. I have a pretty old one with just a touch of dihedral in my garage now that's earmarked for instructing next year.

ratshooter

I agree that Stik type models make excellent trainers when set up with low control throws at least while the radio is on low rates. I stated earlier a Little Stik is what I learned to fly with and pretty much taught myself to fly.

These are also excellent trainer planes with a semi symetrical airfoil instead of the flat bottom airfoil. They are pretty much the same plane as an RCM trainer and other trainer designed by Joe Bridi. Simple to build and as easy to repair as a Stik model. But they still look like a "damned cessna" so the poster HighPlains won't like them.

http://www.bridiairplanes.com/hangar/krafty60.html

I have one I built but haven't flown it yet. But I have owned 2 others in the past and they are very stable and land surprisingly slow.

jester_s1

A guy in my club built all 3 sizes of the Krafty a few years ago. They flew very nicely. They wouldn't self-recover from a dive as well as a flat bottom wing will, but they were so much better in the wind.

JohnBuckner

My Feedback: (1)

Great thread topic Jester. Something that most trainers almost always show up at the field with new fellows is excessive nosewheel throws and simple electronc reduction usually results in insufficient rudder throw.

A great deal of time is lost in getting nosewheel linkage properly set up even sometimes resulting in lost flying days for the student. The alternative is sometimes going ahead and flying it anyway which is unfair to the student as it negates any real learning about ground handling especially takeoffs.

So to answer the question about the Ideal Trainer Characteristics, I would suggest that an ideal trainer would have nosewheel linkage designed so that it would be difficult for the newbie set up wrong. perhaps the steering arm would have only one hole at the end and was of sufficient length to avoid excessive nosewheel throw. In addition the instructions would be clear in need to keep the nosewheel pushrod in a closer hole at the servo.

John

Tom Nied

That's a really good suggestion.

Hydro Junkie

It may be a good suggestion but, at the same time, you have to remember that not everyone sets up a model as per the instructions. I have a tendency of making changes that "normally" are better and more logical than what was originally done by the designer. If I can shave a few ounces here or there, I'll do so since, as I see it, adding weight is easy after the fact while removing weight isn't. This may come from my boat building background since I pretty much always "redesign" something

jester_s1

I think the factory recommended throws on nearly everything are too hot most of the time. Nosewheels and elevators are usually too sensitive for beginner pilots.

Hydro Junkie

Wouldn't that be something an instructor should adjust after a first flight? It seems to me that a beginning student wouldn't know what's too hot or sensitive due to lack of experience where a good instructor would. I do agree, however, that adjusting with the radio isn't the way to go, nor is adding expo

kmeyers

Trainer considerations:

What is the age of the student? 16 and under, 16 - 45, 45 - 65, 65 and up
What is their monetary ability?
Where are they going to fly? My field, private property, farm
Will they have an instructor?

I feel these questions come first and greatly influence the trainer type, size and capabilities.

But if you want to make a general case, an older guy who comes out to my field.

I recommend an ARF ( no attachment because they just spent 4 months building it).
Even a RTF.

The RTF Hobbistar 60 is the nearly perfect choice in many cases.
72" easy for old eyes. LA 65 nitro. Strong , easy, light and powerful. Full house a must. Radio is trainer (buddy box) ready.

I help anyone who comes out with something in hand already. But online I recommend a student answer these questions:
Where are you going to fly?
How are you going to learn (instructor on buddy box, videos, simulator, trial an error)?
What is your time availability?
How much money can you spend easily?

I give this because I think care needs to be taken to not put the cart before the horse!

Propworn

My Feedback: (3)

Most everyone I know learned to fly on regular full house balsa trainers .35 to .60 size be it the ones you had to build in the olden days or the later arfs of the same trainers. Some like me learned without instructors others learned with and some with buddy boxes. Just about every one of us had no problem moving to a mid wing or low wing .40 to .60 size airframe after mastering the trainer. Second planes were often Cubs and the different variants, Spacewalkers, Four Stars etc. By the time the third and fourth airframe came along it was not unusual to see them flying much more advanced airframes .60 size or larger.

Most of the people I see learning on these smallish foam airframes tend to stay with them for a much longer period of time. Many never venture beyond. When they do they are aghast that they can’t peg them off the runway or cartwheel them on takeoff without causing a fair amount of damage.

Generally I find the better pilots learn flying on old school balsa trainers that are 60 inches span wise or better and using full house controls without any aids. If you watch someone learning on these old school airframes the care, control and attention seem to be the main focus. Guys with the foamies will take more chances, pay less attention to detail and accept poor flight practices as a form of entertainment just because they can bounce the things off the ground with little or no damage.

My preference is old school balsa trainers in the 60 plus wingspan be it electric or fuel powered. My all time favorite is the Telemaster .40 with a Saito .56 with flaps. Started out as a trike then converted it to a tail dragger and finally put it on floats and skis. I even put a cradle on the top of the wing and took up 3 meter sailplanes and released them via a 6th channel.

I have an electric Telemaster .40 size
Avistar .40 Arf converted to electric.
PT 60 with OS .61
Early Telemaster 66
Sig Kadet
Lazy Ace
All with flat bottom airfoils and differing dihedral and they all can perform basic aerobatics well enough for any beginner to get a fair handle on what is needed to perform them.

Better yet is for an instructor to use a buddy box at a great enough altitude and teach the student to recover from unexpected upsets.

Dennis

GSXR1000

My Feedback: (7)

Yes, a 60 size or larger stik plane flown buddy box with a club trainer and trimmed for trainer flight characteristics make the best trainer imo, this is just my 2 indian head pennies worth. They can be trimmed pretty tame and also they have ailerons and not have the crutch of have flat bottom or dihedral..

kmeyers

My local club owns and operates a Hobbistar 60 that was purchased as a RTF. After my posting in this thread I checked tower and found this RTF has been discontinued. OS has also discontinued the LA 65.
We have one member bring the hobbistar to "trainer night" every Wednesday during the summer flying season. We offer free instruction and flying on this setup.
It is sad that this RTF is no longer available.

ratshooter

There is a guy at our field that has a Hobbico Hobbiestar 60 and he has a 4 stroke engine on it. A really nice flying plane. The Tower description says it has a " Factory applied adhesive backed" covering. I was interested in the plane and email Hobbico about the covering. I didn't want a model with the sticky backed shelf covering that you almost cannot repair or shrink if needed.

They wrote back and stated they didn't know what brand of covering it was but it came from China and was a heat applied heat shrink like monokote. I am guessing it is the same Chinakote sold by Hobby King and Value Hobbies. And probably the same covering on my Tower Trainer. If thats the case then you can repair it with Monokote and it does heat shrink. But it needs a lower temp than MK. I went over some of the trim on my Tower Trainer with the heat set like for MK and it made the trim shrink too much. I figured that out real quick.

So if a beginner picks this plane at least a minor crash or scuff is easily repaired.

jester_s1

Ultracote should match the heat just about right.

HighPlains

My Feedback: (1)

The only reason I don't like the "damn Cessna" look is strictly due to the tank position. With an upright engine generally the tank is mounted too low. But with electrics, it no longer matters. A Stik with the side mounted engine fixes that problem, but too many ginners tend to land nose down on the spinner and one wingtip. That's a bit rough on mufflers, especially over hard surfaces.

krokodyl

I would take my avistar over my nexstar every day. They can both be setup as trainers, but the avistar can later do way mote aerobatics.

There is something wrong with either the tank, or its position, because it is imposible to empty past one half, no matter what I do.

Tom Nied

You should pull the tank and examine it. Sounds like the pickup line in the tank came off the tubing that passes through the bung.