Beginners Beginners in RC start here for help.

What makes a good trainer

Reply

Old 05-16-2017, 07:50 PM
  #1  
jester_s1
Moderator
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 6,620
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default What makes a good trainer

Many prospective RC pilots come to forums like this one to find out which plane they should buy to get started in this amazing hobby. It's easy enough to get answers on what specific planes to buy. There is even a sticky at the top of this forum with that exact information. Many are happy with that, but it's also helpful to get into the science and the experience that makes these planes good for beginners.

There are a few characteristics that are needed for a beginner plane:
1. Self-righting and stable.
The two go together. High wing planes naturally want to fly upright. A flat bottomed wing (that means curved on top, flat on bottom) will tend to pull itself out of dives, and dihedral (wing is shaped like a V when viewed from the front or back) resists being rolled and will correct itself when allowed to. Good trainers are designed to fly straight and level, and these wing characteristics make them do that. So you want a high wing plane with a flat bottomed wing (or only slightly curved) and some dihedral.

2. Big
Bigger flies better. Skip the little 24-20 inch wingspan planes that are sometimes marketed to beginners. They are ok in an indoor area with the HVAC off, but you'll quickly lose control of them outside. In general, the bigger a plane is the smoother it flies, slower it feels to the pilot, and the more it resists wind effect. Traditionally, balsa planes were sized according to the engines they needed, so a good place to start is with either a .40 or .60 size balsa wood trainer.

3. Lightly loaded
Wing loading is the ratio of the area of the wing to the weight of the plane. A heavy plane is fine as long as it's also a big plane. For a .40-.60 size trainer, a good wing loading is between 17-20 oz per square foot. That will give the plane docile handling characteristics and very gentle stalls. Wing loading is influenced a lot by the plane's construction, but also in your choice of components. As long as you stick with manufacturer's recommendations and don't put an enormous battery or camera gear into the plane you should be fine. But a few planes sold as trainers are on the heavy side, so check the specs.

4. Tricycle gear
Tail draggers have their place in our hobby, but they aren't as easy to manage on the ground. The positive steering of a nose wheel will make learning takeoffs easier.

5. Tractor type prop
This simply means the engine is in the front. Some pusher prop planes (motor in the back) are marketed to beginners. While some beginners have bought them and learned to fly with them, they are a handicap. Tractor configurations can pull themselves out of a stall better, which can let you save the plane from a pilot error.

6. Stable in the wind
This somewhat goes against items 1 and 3. Self-righting planes roll away from side winds which can be quite disconcerting to new pilots. And light planes get tossed around by the wind. So this is a balancing act. If you live in a windy place like Texas, Missouri, Kansas, etc, you should pick a plane will less dihedral (2 degrees is enough) and maybe put a bit more engine on it than is called for. Calmer areas can tolerate the classic 5 degrees of dihedral and lighter planes.

7. Solidly built and easy to fix
This definitely competes with keeping it light, but the fact is some trainers are just too fragile. Common weak areas are the landing gear mount and firewall. Beef them up. And understand you are going to probably ding up your plane while you are learning. Don't buy some moulded plastic plane that you'll have to throw away if it breaks. Simple box type fuselages and balsa wings can be fixed over and over without having to source any special parts. You can even make modifications later if you want.

8. Quality components and field gear
Don't get into this hobby and invest your time only to be disappointed by an unreliable engine, cheap tools, a radio without the features you really need, or junky hardware. Yes, this hobby costs money. But it also costs time. Buying cheap, junky stuff wastes your time and ultimately your money too when you have to replace it or wind up quitting the hobby out of frustration. Save your pennies and get the right stuff the first time.

I'm sure others will have opinions too. I'll ask that the group keep the conversation on topic so this can serve as a concise resource for future RC pilots who want to start out the right way.
jester_s1 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2017, 08:34 PM
  #2  
karolh
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Mandeville, JAMAICA
Posts: 6,589
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Subs
karolh is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2017, 01:22 PM
  #3  
H5487
 
H5487's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,086
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Very well written tutorial!

I would add that the beginner resist the urge to purchase something flashy and exotic to learn with. A beginner's success is highly dependent on starting with a simple, not complex airplane. Multi-engine, canard, floatplane, fast, aerobatic, retract landing gear (etc) aircraft require that you have ALREADY learned basic flight skills. Even full-scale airshow pilots with hot P-51 Mustangs started out in humble Cessnas and Pipers!

Harvey
H5487 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2017, 06:59 PM
  #4  
52larry52
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Villa Rica, GA
Posts: 1,264
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Yes, jester s1 nailed it. Nothing to add and nothing to quibble with. Now, if all newcomers would would just read and heed.
52larry52 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2017, 05:22 AM
  #5  
karolh
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Mandeville, JAMAICA
Posts: 6,589
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by 52larry52 View Post
Yes, jester s1 nailed it. Nothing to add and nothing to quibble with. Now, if all newcomers would would just read and heed.
Ahhhhh such a pity, as some will but most won't.
karolh is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2017, 05:24 AM
  #6  
FlynBuzz
Member
 
FlynBuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Wilmington, NC
Posts: 34
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

look for a wing that is held in place with rubber bands instead of wing bolts. That way if (when!) you cartwheel across the runway it knocks the wing out of place instead of ripping the fuse in half.
FlynBuzz is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2017, 06:16 AM
  #7  
H5487
 
H5487's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,086
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Treat any plane advertised as "A Great Trainer" with skepticism and compare it to Jester S1's checklist before buying. While there are many genuine great trainers out there, there are also many that are advertised as such but in reality, are far from it. For the most part, kit and ARF manufacturers are in the business to sell you their product, not necessarily to teach you how to fly it. And some of the unscrupulous ones freely use deceptive catch-phrases such as "The Perfect Trainer" or "Flies 100mph" to make their plane attractive to the newbie.

Like everything else these days, "Buyer Beware" applies to r/c planes too!

Harvey
H5487 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2017, 07:18 PM
  #8  
jester_s1
Moderator
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 6,620
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

My observation on that is that we are dealing with some extremely mature technology in this hobby. As far as aerodynamics goes, pretty much everything that needed to be discovered about what makes for a good beginner plane airframe was known by the early 80's. So if a new pilot picks a plane that has been produced since then, they are probably good to go. That doesn't mean that there aren't newer designs that work well; the electric technology we got in the last 10 years or so have made some foam designs possible that fly very well and have some advantages. But even still, any design that deviates much from the tried and true probably won't work very well.
jester_s1 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2017, 09:47 AM
  #9  
moparbob498
Member
 
moparbob498's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Homer City
Posts: 69
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

This was exactly what I'm looking to read- learn,.. I kinda picked up that flyzone Cessna Corvalis 350 foam/electric jobbie to learn with...As I love the warbirds...The LHS was going outta business whirlwind (hope I'm allowed to text that) & very unfortunate for me , I liked going to town for any/everything I needed.....Daggg. I'm learning building them & learning to fly (I'm trying, x2 crashes already, 1st- you'd have thought I was a pro...But omg--way too fast, radio was set on high throws, so touchy..-(I have bad nerves/shakes) & a bit too windy, got to that edge - lol- trees & stuff, got away,..Sweet, oh no...Uh oh..Noooo...Crunch...Ever hear foam make a CRUNCH upon impact? Oh my, 2nd crash, after repairs... Sweet fly'n level, goin left a smidge too fast uh oh...Kill engine for glide in, only 2 feet from ground- Who put that damn pine there- clack....360 spin ..Hood & windshield deployed, dent on LE, already repaired..Ready for go #3-.. & I'd like to put that guardian thing in there, I think? I saw it in my tower hobby magazine... Sorry so long winded, -& again most excellent read.. next refurb' I'm going to try & put the wing above fuse...Modify, build..Ect...Pretty confident in my skills... So not afraid to try it, & not afraid to crash it...BUT, I do have 1 , I will not put in the air, until I am confident. As it is, I'm only flying at my niece's farm..No power lines, no trees...No houses, just acre's of farm land... Oh ya,...Bummer, I modified the trike landing gear, it's now a tail dragger,...Trying for a (excuse the pun). Crash course on low wing tail dragger
Have simulator time on PC, & PlayStation, but no amount of time, replaces hands on, taught experience, think I found a fella in town, WW2 vet...That is fantastic for me...Can't hear enough of that historic time & machine period.. it's my favorite..Gas powered engines, 1st Monique chassis design, supercharged, turbo charged, no2 assisted.. damn wish I was lucky to lived that, down side..You got shot at! - most fortunate & unfortunate generation, & 1 of the greatest in my eyes.. kids today have NO idea ,nor care to hear...Man sorry guys I'll start hag'n about that...Just irritates me how skilled/tech savvy people have been getting , I feel pushed aside from technology (that's supposed to be helping us) let's un-educated (properly) jump head over heals into something, that requires a great deal of respect, just as carrying a fire arm, just as deadly, if misused, improper trai in, ect...Like good lord, people's common sense, comprehensive skills,... Oh sorry..Again.
Thank you Jester s1.... Awesome read & taken to heart.
moparbob498 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2017, 11:42 AM
  #10  
donnyman
 
donnyman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Manor, TX But my heart is in Brooklyn N.Y.
Posts: 1,622
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

I just got through posting In "my first warbird" thread. and now this! Most if not all the info to this point is correct but not detailed enough to really do you much good. much of the info needs the reason why but we can't write novels here.

A cub, cessna, ETC is NOT a good trainer NO matter what the full size or R/Cer's say, this is R/C modeling a whole different world. Trainer model planes are call TRAINERS for a reason, pay attention. a flat bottomed wing is a killer when overpowered. if you don't know what you are doing.

if you think you can do better than the designer you would not be called a beginner.

The truth be told if you want to become a proficient R/C pilot start with one of these..... Sig Kadet, Goldberg eagle 63, avistar. not cool? well cool kills fools and beginners alike, and you will be overwhelmed by these true trainers at first anyway.
I have been doing this since the 1940's and still keep a trainer in my hanger. Yes the trainers can do most all the manuvers. a word to the wise!
donnyman is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2017, 12:02 PM
  #11  
moparbob498
Member
 
moparbob498's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Homer City
Posts: 69
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Couldn't pass it up @150 out the door... Thing is, that sucker is TOO fast for me to just jump into, the 1st flight was around 3/4 throttle maybe? Had radio on high rate - for take off, had NO time to flip switch (I did, but panicked) it's so fast, & it handles so we'll, I thought it was going to do cartwheels mid air,,kept it outta the trees- yes it made it clear across the field in 12 seconds, maybe less, high rate & panic= bad ju-ju. Lol,,I uhh almost landed perfect, but way TOO hot coming in, & those stupid boots hooked tall grass, & you can imagine the rest, it glidrs- no pwr. very good. My question, will that guardian - helps right the plane in windy conditions mishaps? Is it worth the 65.00??
moparbob498 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2017, 10:14 AM
  #12  
TCrafty
 
TCrafty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Lakeland, FL
Posts: 581
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

This thread has SO much potential, and as someone said earlier, if those who need it will heed it. Now, that said, there are as many different "styles" and techniques when flying as there are folks flying, so spending time at a field and absorbing as much info as possible is always a good thing. You'll hear many different viewpoints. Listen to the ones that seem to be in agreement, they're typically the important ones.

One of the keys is having help. You CAN learn on your own, chances are you'll learn quicker, and more inexpensively if you have a trainer (the individual who helps you, not just the type of airplane).

Remember how Donnyman said, "a flat bottomed wing is a killer when overpowered". Well, he's right- sort of... Here's where my two cents will come in and it's worth exactly what you paid for it. Which is worse, an "overpowered plane" that has the throttle too high and you keep having to give it down elevator to keep it from ballooning or a "not-overpowered" plane with the engine at WOT the whole time with no additional power to pull it out of a bad situation? Neither one is good. IMHO, neither is training someone to simply floorboard the throttle and constantly pulling the plane back from them on the buddy box because they can't keep up with what it's doing. I understand how a good sized field can get pretty small when you're new to flying, and that's where an instructor can help you by setting the plane in the air at a safe speed and letting you get used to it. In the long run, you'll learn early on that there are two sticks, and each direction does something. You'll be years ahead of some folks at the field. And, instructors, SLOW DOWN THAT PLANE! That flat wing makes a LOT of lift. IF you slow it down to a safe speed without fear of tip-stalling, you'll give the trainee light-years of reaction time.

Now, about that flat-bottom wing. Mounting it on the top of the plane helps with stability. Thankfully there are many types of planes that use a high-mounted wing, so it's not like you're plane will be painted with a big, fluorescent "TRAINEE!!!!!" on it for using this style. The design of the wing is important too. Keep in mind that air puts pressure on everything, in every direction. It's called "atmospheric pressure". Having a flat bottom creates more lift due to the air on the top surface of the wing moving over it faster than the air on the bottom surface. This reduces the amount of "pressure" that the air puts on the top part of the wing. IF you want to see this for real, take a string under the wing and measure from the front (leading edge) of the wing to the rear of the wing. Mark how long the piece of string is to reach this distance. Now, do the same thing with the upper surface. You'll note that the string must be longer to reach when put on the top of the wing.

Last edited by TCrafty; 05-29-2017 at 10:30 AM.
TCrafty is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2017, 10:23 AM
  #13  
TCrafty
 
TCrafty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Lakeland, FL
Posts: 581
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Also, Dihedral was mentioned. That's where the outside tips of the wing (furthest away from the fuselage) are higher than the area where it meets the fuse. This helps with stability and helps the plane "right itself" while flying. Many three channel planes used this when they didn't have ailerons and only used the rudder to "steer" the plane. Many trainers will try to "tip" when you use the rudder. If you try to turn to the left, the plane will likely "tip" to the left also. With a lot of dihedral, what happens is that the wing to the left of the fuse will get more level (flat) with the ground. And, remember, that flat part creates lift. On the other side of the wing, that part is now pointed UP more than it was before. It has less lift due to the high angle, relative to the load of the rest of the plane, So, what does it do? It drops. Bringing the rest of the plane with it until it equalizes when both wings are level with each other. It has successfully "righted" itself!

These characteristics can be quite beneficial to the new flyer, and even afterward, can still provide the enthusiast with a very enjoyable, slow-flying and relaxing way to enjoy the hobby, even after they are well versed in flying warbirds and 3D. So, months or years down the road, remember this and by all means, NEVER SELL your trainer!
TCrafty is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2017, 07:35 AM
  #14  
jaka
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Upplands Vasby, SWEDEN
Posts: 7,775
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Hi!
And don't forget joining a club makes it much much easier for you as you can get help, both in setting the plane up, trimming and flying.
Plane below is a Kyosho "Calmato", 160cm in span, weight 1,8kg, powered by a .28 MVVS engine swinging a 11x5 modified APC prop.
Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	Skolflygplan 012.jpg
Views:	51
Size:	476.4 KB
ID:	2217988   Click image for larger version

Name:	Skolflygplan 010.jpg
Views:	51
Size:	449.8 KB
ID:	2217989  

Last edited by jaka; 05-31-2017 at 07:38 AM.
jaka is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2017, 07:12 PM
  #15  
HighPlains
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Over da rainbow, KS
Posts: 5,085
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

It maybe mature technology, but unfortunately a lot of knowledge has been lost along the way.

The airfoil section is not all that critical, but designs with semi-symmetrical airfoils fly much better than flat bottom airfoils. What makes a design fly out of dives when trimmed is the decalage (relationship of the wing incidence to the tail, engine thrust line, and balance. The airfoil selection has little to no effect, because I can setup a fully symmetrical wing to do the same thing. It is primarily having a nose heavy design that makes the airplane recover from a dive with the extra incidence. In addition, you need a pretty generous horizontal tail to achieve a slow landing when nose heavy so the you can flair.

I personally hate lite ply fuselages, they are heavy so a lot of wood is removed to compensate, but a well designed and built balsa design with careful application of aircraft plywood in key locations will withstand far greater abuse at the same weight.

I agree that a shoulder or high wing design is preferred with modest dihedral and trike gear. But having a provision for switching to a tail dragged would be a plus. One other thing is a constant chord wing only.

My main complaint with most trainers is that they mount the tank too low for proper fuel draw. I also think that beginners should fly nitro powered models because you can just refuel again and go.

Rubber bands are fine, but you have to put them on correctly or they may not come off readily. Having them crossed like Jaka shows in his photo is fine once you are not banging the winging every landing, but straight forward and aft bands allow lower forces to release the wing. Of course if you really want to do the wing right, the servo should not extend below the point where the wing saddle meet the wing. In the old days, that meant laying sideways with pushrods out to bellcranks, but today outboard servos work fine for little cost. However the reason that bolt on wings cause damage is because everyone uses at least a pair of 1/4-20 nylon bolts and that is way too strong to shear and leave the wing undamaged. 10-24 bolts are plenty strong until you get far heavier and bigger than a 40 sized trainer.

About the closest anyone comes now is the Sig LT-40. 40 years ago the Sr. Falcon flew very well. Base any new design on either of these designs and you can't go too wrong.
HighPlains is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2017, 06:11 AM
  #16  
Hydro Junkie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 7,474
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by HighPlains View Post
It maybe mature technology, but unfortunately a lot of knowledge has been lost along the way.

The airfoil section is not all that critical, but designs with semi-symmetrical airfoils fly much better than flat bottom airfoils. What makes a design fly out of dives when trimmed is the decalage (relationship of the wing incidence to the tail, engine thrust line, and balance. The airfoil selection has little to no effect, because I can setup a fully symmetrical wing to do the same thing. It is primarily having a nose heavy design that makes the airplane recover from a dive with the extra incidence. In addition, you need a pretty generous horizontal tail to achieve a slow landing when nose heavy so the you can flair.

I personally hate lite ply fuselages, they are heavy so a lot of wood is removed to compensate, but a well designed and built balsa design with careful application of aircraft plywood in key locations will withstand far greater abuse at the same weight.

I agree that a shoulder or high wing design is preferred with modest dihedral and trike gear. But having a provision for switching to a tail dragged would be a plus. One other thing is a constant chord wing only.

My main complaint with most trainers is that they mount the tank too low for proper fuel draw. I also think that beginners should fly nitro powered models because you can just refuel again and go.

Rubber bands are fine, but you have to put them on correctly or they may not come off readily. Having them crossed like Jaka shows in his photo is fine once you are not banging the winging every landing, but straight forward and aft bands allow lower forces to release the wing. Of course if you really want to do the wing right, the servo should not extend below the point where the wing saddle meet the wing. In the old days, that meant laying sideways with pushrods out to bellcranks, but today outboard servos work fine for little cost. However the reason that bolt on wings cause damage is because everyone uses at least a pair of 1/4-20 nylon bolts and that is way too strong to shear and leave the wing undamaged. 10-24 bolts are plenty strong until you get far heavier and bigger than a 40 sized trainer.

About the closest anyone comes now is the Sig LT-40. 40 years ago the Sr. Falcon flew very well. Base any new design on either of these designs and you can't go too wrong.
And, while I agree on most of that, I've found that a flat bottomed wing generally allows slower air speeds than a semi-symmetrical wing will. They are also easier for a first time builder to assemble since you can lay the structure flat on a building board. A semi-symmetrical airfoil will usually have a foam core or some "trick" way of aligning the ribs so the wing doesn't end up twisted. While that would be fine for someone with some building experience, someone that's never built a plane before might be "overwhelmed" by the thought of gluing a piece of balsa onto both edges of a curved rib structure
Hydro Junkie is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2017, 06:33 AM
  #17  
HighPlains
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Over da rainbow, KS
Posts: 5,085
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

A trick way of assembly? Like a shim under a rear spar? Fourteen old boys at one time could build models that few men can build now, without picture check off instructions or the internet helping them. When did people get stupid?
HighPlains is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2017, 06:49 AM
  #18  
Hydro Junkie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 7,474
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

When smart phones and the internet became required to do anything.
I agree, many of the skills those of us over the age of 40 or so had by the time we hit high school are now deemed to be not needed by the latest generation of college graduates. Hell, I just spent almost a year redesigning a scale hydroplane. When I mentioned it in another forum, here in RCU, I was asked why I wasted my time rather than just order one off the internet. Since the boat I'm building is a "one off" hull, there's no one that has a RTR hull. This means I have to build which meant redesigning to make the boat accurate and in the sizes that I want.
Hydro Junkie is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2017, 07:15 AM
  #19  
HighPlains
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Over da rainbow, KS
Posts: 5,085
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

I hear you. I had a Quickie sitting at the field one day and a guy asked me where I bought it. I told him it was scratch built, so he asked where I got the kit. I said it was scratch built, meaning I designed it, cut the cores, cut all the wood components, and even cut the aluminum landing gear from sheet metal and bent it into shape. I didn't build the engine, but I knew the guy that did, as well as two who made props.
HighPlains is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2017, 05:52 AM
  #20  
HighPlains
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Over da rainbow, KS
Posts: 5,085
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

I recently completed and flew a Kadet LT-25 to train people with. I have not had time to fully sort it out, but it is promising design, less than 14 oz. wing loading. One slight problem is I wish they had designed the fuselage a bit wider, as it is very deep thus hard to fit my hands into it when installing equipment. Pretty much overpowered with a ST .29, so it would be an excellent design to build as an electric with something on the order of a Power 15 and a three or four cell pack.
HighPlains is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2017, 06:48 AM
  #21  
Stickslammer
 
Stickslammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 294
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Very good read for a beginner who might find his or her way here before attempting to take to the skies. In my experience a good local club is essential. A lot of experienced flyers who will recommend the best in the way of trainer aircraft and the like, with flight instruction too. Here was my set up way back in 1994:
Sig Cadet .40 trainer
Enya .40 engine
Futaba SkySport 4 channel radio
All still available today. I think the Futaba 2.4 GHz 4 channel system is under 100 bucks!
I had attempted to "go it alone" previous to this with a mail order Cox .049 2 channel arrangement. I can`t remember the name of the airplane. Very soon just had a lot of smashed plastic and Styrofoam. I still have the .049,though. Anyone remember those? First time I`d seen a "muffled' Cox engine. Very quiet.
Stickslammer is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2017, 07:21 AM
  #22  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 6,515
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Most people I have trained and myself for that matter had issues with pitch trim constantly changing with airspeed changes. It is unreasonable to think that a beginning pilot will be able to hold constant airspeed so IMO setting up an airplane that will trim level for a particular airspeed is not really an advantage. I found that beginners tend to do better with an airplane that will hold pitch trim and goes where they point it.
speedracerntrixie is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2017, 07:44 AM
  #23  
Propworn
My Feedback: (3)
 
Propworn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,766
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

First of all the learning curve depends on a lot more than the choice of equipment. Each person will learn at a different rate even if all things are equal. Don't get hung up if someone is picking up things at what you think is faster than you, after all its not a race.

Going it alone is doable BUT your cost, frustration and rebuilding skills will all take a hit and the time to success will be longer.

An instructor helps shorten and steepen the learning curve.

Belonging to a club with multiple instructors can really shorten the learning curve because you may be able to get more flight time in.

Many beginners run to the hobby shop or listen to online advice on which equipment to buy. If there are instructors you might be better off to ask them what they have good success with. They may even be able to steer you to some good used equipment at a substantial savings.

Dennis
Propworn is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2017, 10:44 AM
  #24  
j.duncker
My Feedback: (2)
 
j.duncker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Sailing in the Eastern Caribbean
Posts: 4,027
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

In the UK many hundreds if not thousands learned to fly with the Ripmax Trainer + an OS LA 46. I see some shops still selling the RT for 66 quid. It had no vices and handled windy conditions well which was essential in the UK. In fact I would only stop training if we needed 3/4 throttle or better to make headway into wind.

But the best aircraft I ever used was a giant Telemaster 150 " span from memory and it was built light. Pupils had lots of thinking time as it did everything very slowly.
j.duncker is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2017, 01:16 AM
  #25  
Thomaswood
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 6
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Well writen !
Thomaswood is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service