2walla

My Feedback: (10)

Its what your neighbors do when they see you out in the front yard with a giant block of styrofoam making a snowstorm that will yield yet another giant masterpiece aircraft!!

Hope all is well Bob!

JollyPopper

My Feedback: (6)

Sticks are one of the most stable planes you will ever run across. That is one reason that there are so many versions of them and all fly well,, very stable and go exactly where you point them.

HighPlains

My Feedback: (1)

I would stay away from a cub for a second plane. Too easy to screw up take offs and landing. A 40 sized stik as a trigear that you can later turn into a tail dragger would be better.

jester_s1

Cubs also have some aerodynamic quirks to get used to. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love flying mine. There is a genuine pleasure in putting around the sky in a big yellow Cub. But with that huge wing and small tail, the wind can put you in a bad position that many beginners don't have the visual skills yet to get out of quickly. There's a good reason you'll keep seeing the same planes mentioned over and over again in these "best 2nd airplane" threads. It's a well traveled road, and we've all been there. Get an Ugly Stick or a 4 Star and develop your piloting skills the same way countless others have. A Pulse is nice too, just without the decades of knowledge and the enormous fan community behind it.

HighPlains

My Feedback: (1)

I really like the way a Pulse flies, but they are just not that tough. They are fine if you can do 100 landings in a row without hitting the prop, but since they are mostly lite ply so much is cut away to make a lightweight model. But they do fly as well as a classic design, a personal favorite of mine, the Andrew Trainermaster. A similar flying model was the old Sportster series, though they were at least a 1/2 pound heavier than the Andrew design.

skyflier

Thank you for all your help guys. So what your saying is that although the cub is nice, it has some quirks that don't make it good for a second plane? I think I get what your saying. I do have a question, would a lowing plane be any harder to fly than a high wing as long as there is no dihedral and the rates are set on low. I was looking at stuff on tower hobby and this http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin...?&I=LXENBM&P=0 caught my eye, would this be any good for a second plane? I would like to get something scale for my second plane so I am thinking of the cherokee or maybe the 182 I mentioned but I do not wan't to get in over my head. Thank you all for your help.

flyboy2610

My Feedback: (1)

I'm not personally familiar with the Cessna, so I can't comment on that.
But regarding whether low wing planes are good second planes, I will say no. A high wing plane has some inherent stability, while a low wing plane is inherently unstable. It is that instability which makes them so maneuverable. This is why most of the great fighters of WWII were low wing planes.
For a second plane I would recommend a Big Stik. Granted they aren't scale, but they will be more stable than a low wing plane. You will get to the low wingers, just be patient.

Pylonracr

I say a Stik as well. I have been flying for more years than I will admit, and I am never without at least 1 in my hangar.

Scott

HighPlains

My Feedback: (1)

I just watched the Seagull video of the Cessna 182. They need a better pilot, one that can use the rudder! Looking at their advertised specifications, and I think their wing loading is a bit on the high side at almost 28 oz/ sq. ft., which is high for a second model. On top of it all, having the wing supported by thin structure and mostly plastic windows is not particularly strong.

I'm less concerned about high wing vs low wing on a second model, if you can't pick up a wing on approach by now, you should stay with the trainer a while longer.

jester_s1

Stability is a much more complicated issue that high or low wing. Dihedral adds stability, so a low wing plane can be just as stable as a flat high wing plane. But there is more to what makes a good second plane than high or low wing. Tail area is a big part of it, with bigger tails (like with ugly sticks) weathervaning into side winds more and being more directionally stable. Then there is stall behavior; a plane that drops a wingtip will get wrecked fast by a beginner.

It's hard for us to tell you what to buy because we don't know your flying ability or teachableness. The Hangar 9 warbirds are more sport plane like than true scale like, so plenty of people have flown their P47 as a second plane or first scale plane. But it won't be as pilot friendly as a 4 Star or Goldberg Tiger 2 or 3.

Johnnysplits

I'll say the Piper Cherokee. You're already used to a trike gear plane, next step is trike low wing. High wing taildraggers are almost as easy to fly as your trainer. If you're interested in a Cub, play with it on the sim. There's really nothing to it. I'm telling you, go for the low wing. I'm self taught from a sim myself. Flew high wing trainer 9 times, now moved on to low wing T-28 with flaps and retracts. You can do it as long as you can do it on the sim without crashing. Sim to real life transitions about 90% in my opinion. Best to practice real life flying in very little wind. I got impatient yesterday and flew the T-28 for the first time in 11-15 mph crosswinds. Did three cycles on one pack, legs shaking like crazy, but very happy that the plane came home undamaged.

52larry52

My Feedback: (1)

skyflier, As you can see, there is as many opinions out there as there is plane choices out there. We don't all have the same attraction to the same type of airplane. My preference is toward scale civilian type airplanes therefore I have many Cubs and Cessna type planes in my hanger. I flew RC for over 10 years before I bought my first "ugly stick" because.........well the're UGLY! I like nice looking planes that look like real airplanes. Just my preference. Sure the stick flies nice, but in order for me to tolerate it being in my hanger I had to put a cowl on it and build a cockpit with with a red baron pilot in it. It was done in a cartoon style not trying to be scale like, but at least it had a pilot. So if you lean toward scale type planes don't avoid going in that direction, just go slowly and ease into it. A "semi-scale" plane like the Tower Cub ARF has little things done to it to improve the flight characteristics over a model that is an absolute dead accurate reduced size copy of the original. This has been done to model airplanes forever. The dead accurate reduced size model, "true scale", is more difficult to fly than a "semi-scale" version of the same plane. Some of the things done to the Tower semi-scale Cub are a lengthened fuselage. slightly taller vertical stab, slightly wider horz. stab, slightly increased wing core size and a different airfoil section. All of these non scale changes are subtle and don't make the plane look strange and out of wack, but do improve the ease of flying it. This is the kind of scale plane you want to "ease into" in the scale arena. More model planes are actually semi-scale than true scale especially in the lower cost entry level market. Some are more "semi" than others and some go too far and look strange. The Tower Cub is a good mix between true and semi scale. It still looks like a J-3 Cub, still has some Cub flight characteristics, yet is pilot friendly. If a Cub is the type of plane that appeals to you, get some taildragger experience with your converted trainer, and some help from a Cub flyer in your club and you can do it. A Cub flying mentor to help at first is vital. Don't go totally alone. BTY.... the Tower Cub ARF is on sale right now @ $149.99 ! With a Tower code discount coupon you can get another $10-15 off the $149.99 price. How is $135-$140 sound for that plane? Also BTY, an O.S. 46 AX will fly it quite well, no mega money motor is needed. Enjoy !

52larry52

My Feedback: (1)

skyflier, AND FURTHER MORE........no, just kidding. I don't mean to go on forever over this but I do want to add that the GP Cherokee and the Phoenix Cessna 182 both also look like good choices. All three, the Cub, the Cherokee, and the 182 are all in the same general price area so cost is not a factor, just buy the one that YOU like the most. The Cub is the largest and will have an 81" one piece wing, Can you transport an 81" wing? The Cub will be the biggest floater of the three and may need the longest runway, how much runway does your club have? On the plus side, @81" the Cub can fly in "giant scale" events. The Cherokee has a lot of dihedral and should be a stable low winger and is the same size as your trainer. The 182 is only slightly larger than your trainer. Both the Cherokee and the 182 are tricycle gear not needing taildragger skills. All three will fly well on an O.S. 46 AX. So it comes down to....which one do you like most?

skyflier

Thank you, I actually don't have a club beings that I live in the middle of nowhere and the nearest club is a hour away. So I just fly at our fairgrounds, my "runway" is a asphalt one way access road with high grass on one side and a corn field on the other, but on the plus side it is quite long. I have gotten the wingtip of my plane in the grass a couple of time and it just yanks it off the runway. No damage either time though

jester_s1

FWIW, Cubs love 4 stroke engines. I have the Hangar 9 80" Cub with a Saito .72. I can take off in about 20 feet if I want to, but can also putt around at 1/2 throttle. That draggy airframe needs a lot of prop to pull it, which is exactly what a 4 stroke gives you. Plus it sounds cool and doesn't use as much fuel. If you use a 2 stroke you will have to use less pitch to get a big enough prop on it. It won't fly badly at all, but power application is not as smooth IMO.

52larry52

My Feedback: (1)

While jester's point on 4 strokes in Cubs has merit, (I have many Cubs with both 4 stroke and 2 stroke glow power) I sensed a budget issue and therefore stuck with the lower cost to purchase 2 stroke power in the discussion. IMHO a 4 stroke in any scale plane is an upgrade but not a necessity. Buy what you can afford both in planes and power. So skyflier, you say you "live in the middle of nowhere and the nearest club is an hour away". Not ideal, but I will factor that in. Basic questions...are you an AMA member? Member or not, have you gone to the AMA site and punched in your zip code to find the nearest club or two? Have you visited any of the clubs that the AMA site lists in your area? I understand what a PITA having to drive an hour or so to fly is (it's a cost too), but if you are going to advance past where you are in RC flying I can't understate how valuable a flying buddy is, both in knowledge gained and in saving your plane from being destroyed needlessly. You will have $500-$600 invested in any of the three planes (when completed ready to fly) that you are looking at, so Is it worth driving an hour to get someone with experience to test fly and mentor you as you advance? I too live in a county where there are no RC flying clubs and no hobby stores so I have also lived the problem. Not all clubs are wonderful so If you chose to go that route don't be afraid to shop a couple as a guest (you will have to be an AMA member to do that). "Plan B".....somehow find the "secret" group of guys that also fly RC in your area and try to hook up with them. They exist almost everywhere but are under the radar, not AMA sanctioned and hard to find. Ask at your hobby store if there is one. Flying with other like minded people is not only safer and helpful, but is is more fun too. I urge you to fix that situation before you dump a large amount of cash into an expensive plane and then loose it. Tell us where you live and see if someone here on RCU can help you as you step up. If you are in the west Georgia area I will bring you to our "secret non AMA flying club" and get you over the hump from a trainer to a scale plane. Others here on RCU from different areas will also help. Where do you call home?

GSXR1000

My Feedback: (7)

Yes, lol most every decent size city will have a AREA 51 rogue flying site. Usually it's a mix of Cowboys who don't follow AMA guide line and people who do follow the guide lines, just these people don't have the money or don't feel like paying AMA or club dues etc....

Yasbush

Sig four Star forty hands down! Easy build, great first low wing.

skyflier

I do have friends in the area that fly rc around here and they have helped me alot, so i'm not to worried about that aspect of it. I was just getting opinions on a good second plane.

Tom Nied

If you can fly a basic trainer that has dihedral and are fairly confident with it, then don't be worried taking on a flat wing sport plane. OK, they are not self correcting. But you will be amazed how honest they are when you are flying them. And that's the thing that's great about them. My first flat wing (no dihedral) was the SPAD Debonair, that I built with no dihedral. And once I got it up in the air, it was great. But yeah, don't expect self leveling abilities.

HighPlains

My Feedback: (1)

At this point (second airplane), one should decide what their goals are. Are you the type of flier that just wants to takeoff, fly around a racetrack pattern with the occasional loop or roll for 10 minutes and then arrive at a landing with just enough finesse that repairs are usually limited to a broken prop or broken landing gear mount. That puts you in the solid majority.

Or do you really want to learn how to fly? This takes a much longer time and most never achieve it for a variety of reasons. It takes quite a bit of time, good eyesight, and a fair amount of failure because you will have to push your limits. It will also require yourself to do a fair amount of experimentation with your airplanes in order to trim them out so that their response is consistent. This is actually half the battle, because while I can usually trim out other people's models in a couple of flights to where they fly better than any model they have flown, I will still be making changes 30 to 50 flights into a good airframe to correct small problems. While most people are solo'ed in a few dozen flights, I really think it takes several years of constant flying instruction to get people to the next level, but again, most fall out from wanting to improve long before they get there.

But first you need to learn the basics, loops, rolls, spins, and feel comfortable flying inverted for minutes at a time. And you have to do it with four basic controls at all times, because not a single manouver is done without at least three of the four control inputs being used. If you are really interested, pm me.

HighPlains

My Feedback: (1)

Meanwhile, I would go with either a Stik or the 4Star design for a second plane. Both are ugly, easy to work on, and most importantly have a light wing loading with a constant chord wing. That means if you get a little too slow they tend not to bite you hard, but merely gum you a bit.

ratshooter

Those are my favorite kind of people to fly with. I wish I could find another group like that in the Burleson Tx area.

skyflier

Being only thirteen, I am more looking to perfect landing and takeoffs than to learn a lot of aerobatics. I am more into scale planes than sport,stunt planes so I am just looking to get good at flying scale planes for now. But that could change as I get better, I may get bored with scale planes and want to learn more aerobatics I just don't need stunt planes right now.

Tom Nied

Well, if you feel you are still learning, a Big Stik 40 is not a bad direction to go. Squint hard enough and they kind of look like a Fokker Eindecker. Also, it will teach you a lot. Now I know. WWI aircraft can be kind of ugly, but WWI aircraft is where aviation really took off. Nothing wrong with flying a stick, wish I had one.