semi symmetrical
01-07-2008, 10:09 PM
#3
RE: semi symmetrical
Take a look at [link=http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_4537845/tm.htm]RCKen's list of trainers[/link] to see what is out there. He has put together a good list of secondary trainers. If you are willing to go the kit route instead of an ARF, that opens up even more options.
Hogflyer
Hogflyer
01-07-2008, 10:20 PM
#4
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Omaha, NE
Posts: 4,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: semi symmetrical
I personally trained and solo'd on a Nexstar Select RTF a few years ago. Since that time, I've built and flown a Tower Trainer .40 MkII ARF with an O.S. .46 FX. More recently, I helped a good friend purchase an Avistar Select RTF from a gentleman who bought it then decided he didn't have time to fly it. We have flown the Avistar as my friend's primary trainer with the O.S. .40 LA and Futaba SkySport 4 radio.
The Tower Trainer .40 MkII ARF is, in my opinion, most likely supplied by the same factory that makes the Nexstar and Avistar ARFs for Hobbico. I am fairly certain of this because the wheels, fuel tank, and engine mount supplied with my Tower Trainer .40 MkII ARF were the identical parts supplied with my Nexstar Select RTF. I think it's important to note this, so that a prospective buyer can rest assured that all three planes will feature similar design and quality characteristics.
Having flown all three of them in the role of primary training aircraft (one as student and two as instructor), I am also comfortable comparing the flying characteristics of all three airframes and making general comparisons between the three.
Of the three airframes, two suffer from similar covering problems while a thirds seems less prone to trouble. All three are covered with Monokote, and the primary covering job is well done on all three aircraft. For some reason, however, keep trim pieces stuck down to the Nexstar or to the Tower Trainer .40 MkII seems like a full time job while the Avistar seems less prone to these kinds of problems. Window decals and stripe pieces will peel off Nexstars and Tower Trainers like Chaquita stickers peel off bananas. Why Avistars seem to hold up better I have no idea, but they do.
Based on my experiences, I have found planes covered with Ultracote tend to be less succeptable than Monokote covered ARFs to bubbling and sagging as the seasons change and easier to smooth out with heat gun or iron. If top quality covering and low maintenence requirements for the ARFs covering are a priority, then trainers from Goldberg or Hangar 9 should be considered.
Again, with regard to flying characteristics, one stands out from the others. I found both the Tower Trainer .40 MkII and the Avistar to have very good consistent and neutral handling characteristics in a wide variety of wind and weather conditions. The Nexstar is easier than the other two to land for a novice, having more of a classic "floating" landing charactistic than the other two designs. This floatiness comes at the price of windy flying characteristics. The long wing chord and longer wing span of the Nexstar make it more succeptable to wind buffetting than the other two and it can be more difficult for a student to turn in breezy conditions.
The Myth of Semi-Symmetrical Wings on Trainers
This opinion is going to ruffle some feathers as it tends to challenge popular opinion. Based on my trainer experiences, I believe that shallow versus deep dihedral is far more important to a trainer wing's "sport handling" characteristics than whether that wing is flat-bottomed or semi-symmetrical. When comparing trainer wings, it appears to me that "semi-symmetrical" is simply a fancy marketing term for "not quite completely flat bottomed. Comparing the wing rib of an Avistar to the wing rib of a Tower Trainer .40 MkII will show you how really small the difference between the two designs is. I'm not suggesting that a semi-symmetrical design doesn't contribute at all to improved aerobatic characteristics on a trainer, only that the contribution of that factor (flat or semi) alone isn't enough to automatically rule one out over the other.
When I built my Tower Trainer .40 MkII ARF, I wanted it to fly a little sportier than the most basic of trainers. The ARF manual recommends building the wing with about 5 1/2 inches of dihedral. I did a little extra sanding on my wing joiner to flatten mine out, and it came out at about 3 3/4 inches of dihedral. When I flew the plane, I was surprised to find that my flat-bottomed wing trainer was as aerobatic and could fly in the wind as good as Avistars in the club could.
This caused me to go back and look at what else was different on most of these sport trainers w/ semi-symmetrical like the Avistar, the WM Sky Raider Mach I, and Hangar 9 Arrow. To an airframe, all of these sportier trainer designs also featured wing dihedral much flatter than more traditional designs like the Sig Kadet or GP PT-40. It's the high amount of dihedral that causes traditional trainers to roll less gracefully, it's high dihedral that causes traditional trainers to tend to fall out of loops, and it's high dihedral that make many traditional trainers feel so much more succeptable to wind buffetting.
In theory, I know that a semi-symmetrical airfoil is "cleaner" by design than a flat-bottomed airfoil. I just think that, in terms of real-world sport flying with ARF trainers, that semi-symmetrical wing design ends up being about as important as the rear spoiler on the hatchback of your typical Mazda. The vehicle is going to spend 98% of it's time operating in conditions where it makes no apparent difference.
In Conclusion
I liked my Nexstar while I was flying it. It was a good looking airframe and it was very easy with which to learn to land. If I ever bought another one, it wouldn't be the RTF version. I probably would never buy another one, however, because taking out the steep dihedral would require significant modifications and flying conditions are simply too windy where I live to enjoy the stock Nexstar most of the time.
I believe that any pilot looking for a quality primary trainer would be equally well served by either an Avistar or a Tower Trainer 40 MkII. I believe that the perfect engine for either of these airframes is the O.S. Max .46 LA because of it's light weight. More power isn't necessary to fly either of these airframes even in a very aerobatic manner, and a 17 ounce ball bearing 2-stroke makes the airframe difficult to balance without adding weight. Too many students put heavy ball-bearing .46s on their Avistars and then struggle to learn landings because their trainer is nose-heavy and lands hotter than it should.
I believe that any pilot concerned about the appearance and longevity of the trim scheme of his aircraft would be well served by spending $30 extra on the Avistar and then $4 extra on an exhaust deflector for his muffler. If a pilot already owns a Super Tigre G-45 ABC engine that he wishes to use. I think he should look instead to the Hangar 9 Alpha .40 ARF. The Hangar 9 Alpha .40 is designed to balance properly with a heavier ball-bearing .46-size engine. The H9 Alpha .40 ARF is also covered and trimmed in Ultracote, and it will stay looking new for much longer than the other airframes previously mentioned.
Hopefully my opinions at least seem informed when weighed with their given explanations. Good luck and good shopping!
The Tower Trainer .40 MkII ARF is, in my opinion, most likely supplied by the same factory that makes the Nexstar and Avistar ARFs for Hobbico. I am fairly certain of this because the wheels, fuel tank, and engine mount supplied with my Tower Trainer .40 MkII ARF were the identical parts supplied with my Nexstar Select RTF. I think it's important to note this, so that a prospective buyer can rest assured that all three planes will feature similar design and quality characteristics.
Having flown all three of them in the role of primary training aircraft (one as student and two as instructor), I am also comfortable comparing the flying characteristics of all three airframes and making general comparisons between the three.
Of the three airframes, two suffer from similar covering problems while a thirds seems less prone to trouble. All three are covered with Monokote, and the primary covering job is well done on all three aircraft. For some reason, however, keep trim pieces stuck down to the Nexstar or to the Tower Trainer .40 MkII seems like a full time job while the Avistar seems less prone to these kinds of problems. Window decals and stripe pieces will peel off Nexstars and Tower Trainers like Chaquita stickers peel off bananas. Why Avistars seem to hold up better I have no idea, but they do.
Based on my experiences, I have found planes covered with Ultracote tend to be less succeptable than Monokote covered ARFs to bubbling and sagging as the seasons change and easier to smooth out with heat gun or iron. If top quality covering and low maintenence requirements for the ARFs covering are a priority, then trainers from Goldberg or Hangar 9 should be considered.
Again, with regard to flying characteristics, one stands out from the others. I found both the Tower Trainer .40 MkII and the Avistar to have very good consistent and neutral handling characteristics in a wide variety of wind and weather conditions. The Nexstar is easier than the other two to land for a novice, having more of a classic "floating" landing charactistic than the other two designs. This floatiness comes at the price of windy flying characteristics. The long wing chord and longer wing span of the Nexstar make it more succeptable to wind buffetting than the other two and it can be more difficult for a student to turn in breezy conditions.
The Myth of Semi-Symmetrical Wings on Trainers
This opinion is going to ruffle some feathers as it tends to challenge popular opinion. Based on my trainer experiences, I believe that shallow versus deep dihedral is far more important to a trainer wing's "sport handling" characteristics than whether that wing is flat-bottomed or semi-symmetrical. When comparing trainer wings, it appears to me that "semi-symmetrical" is simply a fancy marketing term for "not quite completely flat bottomed. Comparing the wing rib of an Avistar to the wing rib of a Tower Trainer .40 MkII will show you how really small the difference between the two designs is. I'm not suggesting that a semi-symmetrical design doesn't contribute at all to improved aerobatic characteristics on a trainer, only that the contribution of that factor (flat or semi) alone isn't enough to automatically rule one out over the other.
When I built my Tower Trainer .40 MkII ARF, I wanted it to fly a little sportier than the most basic of trainers. The ARF manual recommends building the wing with about 5 1/2 inches of dihedral. I did a little extra sanding on my wing joiner to flatten mine out, and it came out at about 3 3/4 inches of dihedral. When I flew the plane, I was surprised to find that my flat-bottomed wing trainer was as aerobatic and could fly in the wind as good as Avistars in the club could.
This caused me to go back and look at what else was different on most of these sport trainers w/ semi-symmetrical like the Avistar, the WM Sky Raider Mach I, and Hangar 9 Arrow. To an airframe, all of these sportier trainer designs also featured wing dihedral much flatter than more traditional designs like the Sig Kadet or GP PT-40. It's the high amount of dihedral that causes traditional trainers to roll less gracefully, it's high dihedral that causes traditional trainers to tend to fall out of loops, and it's high dihedral that make many traditional trainers feel so much more succeptable to wind buffetting.
In theory, I know that a semi-symmetrical airfoil is "cleaner" by design than a flat-bottomed airfoil. I just think that, in terms of real-world sport flying with ARF trainers, that semi-symmetrical wing design ends up being about as important as the rear spoiler on the hatchback of your typical Mazda. The vehicle is going to spend 98% of it's time operating in conditions where it makes no apparent difference.
In Conclusion
I liked my Nexstar while I was flying it. It was a good looking airframe and it was very easy with which to learn to land. If I ever bought another one, it wouldn't be the RTF version. I probably would never buy another one, however, because taking out the steep dihedral would require significant modifications and flying conditions are simply too windy where I live to enjoy the stock Nexstar most of the time.
I believe that any pilot looking for a quality primary trainer would be equally well served by either an Avistar or a Tower Trainer 40 MkII. I believe that the perfect engine for either of these airframes is the O.S. Max .46 LA because of it's light weight. More power isn't necessary to fly either of these airframes even in a very aerobatic manner, and a 17 ounce ball bearing 2-stroke makes the airframe difficult to balance without adding weight. Too many students put heavy ball-bearing .46s on their Avistars and then struggle to learn landings because their trainer is nose-heavy and lands hotter than it should.
I believe that any pilot concerned about the appearance and longevity of the trim scheme of his aircraft would be well served by spending $30 extra on the Avistar and then $4 extra on an exhaust deflector for his muffler. If a pilot already owns a Super Tigre G-45 ABC engine that he wishes to use. I think he should look instead to the Hangar 9 Alpha .40 ARF. The Hangar 9 Alpha .40 is designed to balance properly with a heavier ball-bearing .46-size engine. The H9 Alpha .40 ARF is also covered and trimmed in Ultracote, and it will stay looking new for much longer than the other airframes previously mentioned.
Hopefully my opinions at least seem informed when weighed with their given explanations. Good luck and good shopping!
01-07-2008, 10:32 PM
#5
Senior Member
RE: semi symmetrical
Take a look at the World Models Sky Raider Mach-1. It is a high wing airplane with a semi-symetrical airfoil and less dihedral than most trainers. It is a stable flyer with some aerobatic potential but still offers gentle, slow landings. I recently bought one just to have as a relaxing plane now and then. I was skeptical it would be any good considering the price but I am very impressed with it. The only thing I don't like is the ugly covering but I didn't buy it for a show piece. You can check it out at www.airborne-models.com
If you are really adventurous, you could build a new wing for your Nexstar. I messed around in Real Flight and shortened the Nexstar wingspan, changed to a semi-symetrical airfoil (NACA ???? I forget which one) and reduced the dihedral. It flys great on the computer. It would be interesting to see if it would be the same in real life.
If you are really adventurous, you could build a new wing for your Nexstar. I messed around in Real Flight and shortened the Nexstar wingspan, changed to a semi-symetrical airfoil (NACA ???? I forget which one) and reduced the dihedral. It flys great on the computer. It would be interesting to see if it would be the same in real life.
01-07-2008, 11:05 PM
#6
RE: semi symmetrical
To add just a bit more to what BigEd said about the Alpha 40 - there is a guy in my club who has one. He's just gotten back into the hobby after being out for many years. He used to fly pattern and it shows in his flying skills. He'll fly circles around Sky Raider Mk I & II's, 4*'s, Pulses, ect with the Alpha. I've watch him fly one flight with the Alpha and turn right around and fly the same routine with a Sky Raider Mk II. The Alpha, in his hands, was a match for the Sky Raider in every maneuver except for spins where the aerodynamic limitations of the flat bottom wing prevented it from winding up as tight in a spin, and some snap maneuvers, again due to the airfoil.
Also don't rule out planes with a thick symmetrical airfoil like a Big Stick and similar. If you are willing to build from a kit, there are the Sig Kavalier and Astro Hog, both with semi-symmetrical airfoils. The Kavalier will do just about anything you want, including lomcevaks. The Astro Hog gained it's fame as the 1958 multi (in the day it was 8-channel, referred to as 4 channels today) National aerobatic champion. It's a very stable, good flying plane that can be used as a primary trainer, but is one of the best secondary trainers. With the throws stepped up it makes a great aerobatic trainer you'll enjoy flying for many years. The Hog uses the NACA 2415 airfoil which has a very good reputation for being aerobatic yet friendly.
If you want to build a new wing for the NextStar as was suggested, I've played with different airfoils for the NextStar on my RF G3.5. I used both the NACA 2415 semi-symmetrical and Bridi Trainer 60 fully symmetrical airfoils. Both are thick which helped lower the landing speed on the flight sim and worked quite well. The NACA has better slow flight and the Bridi had better aerobatics which was to be expected. I think either would work fine on the NextStar if you wanted to go that route. Dr. Selig's website on the SIU website will give you the airfoil plots which are not that difficult to layout with free programs like Prolifi and a low-end Cad system.
Hogflyer
Also don't rule out planes with a thick symmetrical airfoil like a Big Stick and similar. If you are willing to build from a kit, there are the Sig Kavalier and Astro Hog, both with semi-symmetrical airfoils. The Kavalier will do just about anything you want, including lomcevaks. The Astro Hog gained it's fame as the 1958 multi (in the day it was 8-channel, referred to as 4 channels today) National aerobatic champion. It's a very stable, good flying plane that can be used as a primary trainer, but is one of the best secondary trainers. With the throws stepped up it makes a great aerobatic trainer you'll enjoy flying for many years. The Hog uses the NACA 2415 airfoil which has a very good reputation for being aerobatic yet friendly.
If you want to build a new wing for the NextStar as was suggested, I've played with different airfoils for the NextStar on my RF G3.5. I used both the NACA 2415 semi-symmetrical and Bridi Trainer 60 fully symmetrical airfoils. Both are thick which helped lower the landing speed on the flight sim and worked quite well. The NACA has better slow flight and the Bridi had better aerobatics which was to be expected. I think either would work fine on the NextStar if you wanted to go that route. Dr. Selig's website on the SIU website will give you the airfoil plots which are not that difficult to layout with free programs like Prolifi and a low-end Cad system.
Hogflyer
01-07-2008, 11:27 PM
#7
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: , KY
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: semi symmetrical
thank you very much big ed for the reply it really helped me out you explained it very well thank all you guys for your help i think ive narrowed it down to either the avistar or the h9 alpha!!!
01-07-2008, 11:52 PM
#8
Senior Member
RE: semi symmetrical
ORIGINAL: hogflyer
If you want to build a new wing for the NextStar as was suggested, I've played with different airfoils for the NextStar on my RF G3.5. I used both the NACA 2415 semi-symmetrical and Bridi Trainer 60 fully symmetrical airfoils. Both are thick which helped lower the landing speed on the flight sim and worked quite well. T
If you want to build a new wing for the NextStar as was suggested, I've played with different airfoils for the NextStar on my RF G3.5. I used both the NACA 2415 semi-symmetrical and Bridi Trainer 60 fully symmetrical airfoils. Both are thick which helped lower the landing speed on the flight sim and worked quite well. T
01-08-2008, 07:22 AM
#9
RE: semi symmetrical
My second was a Goldberg Tiger 60 ARF. It is large (visible) red (again, visible), and with the proper engine.. I had an OS 61 SF, it will perform with the best of them. I had and flew that plane for several years now, just sold it to someone that, hopefully, will get as much joy out of it that I did.
Excellent second aircraft.. and a very capable low wing trainer.
CGr.
Excellent second aircraft.. and a very capable low wing trainer.
CGr.
01-08-2008, 12:52 PM
#11
Senior Member
RE: semi symmetrical
Try the SIG kavalier. It is a shoulderwing with semi. Dropping the wing down makes it a little more aerobatic without going to an extreme, and the semi makes it less throttle sensitive. Very good flyer.
I got mine when I totalled my Eagle 2. I called around a few hobby shops and they recommended the Kavalier. I didn't want to build another trainer.
I got mine when I totalled my Eagle 2. I called around a few hobby shops and they recommended the Kavalier. I didn't want to build another trainer.
01-08-2008, 05:04 PM
#13
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: denver, CO
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: semi symmetrical
...and I'll throw in another vote for the Hangar 9 Arrow 40.
I have still only flown the simulator, and am not even getting a plane until next spring, but after exhaustive "research" (i.e. reading these forums a lot) I personally came to the conclusion that the Arrow 40 is probably the best "1st and 2nd plane in one" out there. You'll here a lot about the Avistar, but never the glowing reports you'll hear about the Arrow in terms of aerobatic performance after you have outgrown the "trainer" type flying. Even the post in this thread was more evidence of that too me. From everything I have read over the last few months, if you are looking for a trainer that can serve as both a first and second plane then the real choices are between the Avistar, Arrow 40, and Sky Raider. Of the three, if you really listen to what experienced people say about them over a long period of time... the Avistar actually seems to rank last among them, even though it is talked about the most of them. The Sky Raider guys really like thier plane a lot, but all you ever hear about an Arrow 40 is how "amazed" people are by what it can actually do and how it flies.
Maybe I've picked up the wrong impression, but over the long term what I have picked up on is that the Arrow 40 is the "highest performance" out of the three major "1st/2nd planes in one plane". That if you looking for a trainer that can TRULY serve fully a second plane, that only the Arrow 40 is a "true second plane" in addition to being a trainer. My impression has been that the Avistar is a better trainer than an Arrow 40, but not nearly the "second plane" that the Arrow 40 is. The Sky Raider appears to fall somewhere between the two.
So, assuming that my overall impressions are close to being correct, the question really becomes "Do I want a 1st/2nd plane in one that is more first plane, or more second plane?" and I think the answer to that question depends on how fast you think you will learn. I think I will learn very fast, so I want my 1st/2nd plane in 1 to be more 2nd plane than 1st plane... so I am going with an Arrow 40.
Of course, haven't actually flown any of these planes, so I could very easly be totally wrong about everything I just said:-)
I have still only flown the simulator, and am not even getting a plane until next spring, but after exhaustive "research" (i.e. reading these forums a lot) I personally came to the conclusion that the Arrow 40 is probably the best "1st and 2nd plane in one" out there. You'll here a lot about the Avistar, but never the glowing reports you'll hear about the Arrow in terms of aerobatic performance after you have outgrown the "trainer" type flying. Even the post in this thread was more evidence of that too me. From everything I have read over the last few months, if you are looking for a trainer that can serve as both a first and second plane then the real choices are between the Avistar, Arrow 40, and Sky Raider. Of the three, if you really listen to what experienced people say about them over a long period of time... the Avistar actually seems to rank last among them, even though it is talked about the most of them. The Sky Raider guys really like thier plane a lot, but all you ever hear about an Arrow 40 is how "amazed" people are by what it can actually do and how it flies.
Maybe I've picked up the wrong impression, but over the long term what I have picked up on is that the Arrow 40 is the "highest performance" out of the three major "1st/2nd planes in one plane". That if you looking for a trainer that can TRULY serve fully a second plane, that only the Arrow 40 is a "true second plane" in addition to being a trainer. My impression has been that the Avistar is a better trainer than an Arrow 40, but not nearly the "second plane" that the Arrow 40 is. The Sky Raider appears to fall somewhere between the two.
So, assuming that my overall impressions are close to being correct, the question really becomes "Do I want a 1st/2nd plane in one that is more first plane, or more second plane?" and I think the answer to that question depends on how fast you think you will learn. I think I will learn very fast, so I want my 1st/2nd plane in 1 to be more 2nd plane than 1st plane... so I am going with an Arrow 40.
Of course, haven't actually flown any of these planes, so I could very easly be totally wrong about everything I just said:-)
01-08-2008, 09:51 PM
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: MCALISTERVILLE,
PA
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: semi symmetrical
Big Stik .60 !!!!
...great second,semi-symetrical wing plane. It was my second plane,and I still love fly it more then any other of my plane simply because its so easy and stress free to fly. I'm really glad I took my instructors advice and got it as my second plane too. I learned on a PT-40 which is very close to an the avistar a guy I fly with has. That Avistar is IMO on the same level as my PT-40 and you Nexstar your already flying.
Big Stick!!!
...great second,semi-symetrical wing plane. It was my second plane,and I still love fly it more then any other of my plane simply because its so easy and stress free to fly. I'm really glad I took my instructors advice and got it as my second plane too. I learned on a PT-40 which is very close to an the avistar a guy I fly with has. That Avistar is IMO on the same level as my PT-40 and you Nexstar your already flying.
Big Stick!!!
01-08-2008, 10:53 PM
#16
Senior Member
RE: semi symmetrical
ORIGINAL: Jester241
Big Stik .60 !!!!
...great second,semi-symetrical wing plane. It was my second plane,and I still love fly it more then any other of my plane simply because its so easy and stress free to fly. I'm really glad I took my instructors advice and got it as my second plane too. I learned on a PT-40 which is very close to an the avistar a guy I fly with has. That Avistar is IMO on the same level as my PT-40 and you Nexstar your already flying.
Big Stick!!!
Big Stik .60 !!!!
...great second,semi-symetrical wing plane. It was my second plane,and I still love fly it more then any other of my plane simply because its so easy and stress free to fly. I'm really glad I took my instructors advice and got it as my second plane too. I learned on a PT-40 which is very close to an the avistar a guy I fly with has. That Avistar is IMO on the same level as my PT-40 and you Nexstar your already flying.
Big Stick!!!
01-08-2008, 10:58 PM
#17
Senior Member
My Feedback: (133)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bakersfield,
CA
Posts: 1,243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: semi symmetrical
World Models Super Stunts 40. It's a really well done Big Stik clone, and under $100. An absolute joy to fly, very light weight, low wing loading, and will fly well with the radio and engine from your trainer. The World Models T-34 is another great 1st low wing plane, flies like a Tiger II, which is a fantastic plane. The Tiger II will make you look better than you are - lands easier than a trainer, and will fly like a pattern plane. It costs a little more though, and will spoil you quickly.
Models that I will always have in my hangar or build list:
Goldberg Tiger II / Tiger 60 (usually one of each)
Big Stiks and derivations - I have an original Jensen kit, GP 20,40,and 60 sizes, and a pile of Midwest Aero Sports in all 3 sizes. Also both the WM Super Stunts (40 and 60) and a Morris Hobbies Jerry's Big Boy.
Sig Somethin' Extra.
GP Ultra Sport 60 and 1000.
GP Super Sportster 20,40,60, 90/120 and Bipe.
Sig Wonder.
Bridi/GP Kaos 40.
Ultimate Bipe (Dave Patrick at the moment).
Airtronics New Era III.
These are a few of my favorite planes. All of them are proven designs, and what I call honest flyers - no nasty surprises. If I could only have ONE - it would be very hard to choose between the Super Stunts 60 with a Saito 91, the Tiger 60 with a OS 61 two stroke, and the Big Stik 60 with a Saito 91. Those are the ones that make my face hurt, 'cuz I wear this huge goofy grin every time I fly one of them. On a bang-for-buck basis, the Super Stunts 40 is a clear winner - take the radio and engine out of a 40-sized trainer, add a servo so you can put two in the wing, spend a day assembling and you've got a great airplane. The only change I make from stock is to use a Dubro plastic main gear set, which eliminates the pogo landings caused by the included wire. I do the same on ARF trainers.
Models that I will always have in my hangar or build list:
Goldberg Tiger II / Tiger 60 (usually one of each)
Big Stiks and derivations - I have an original Jensen kit, GP 20,40,and 60 sizes, and a pile of Midwest Aero Sports in all 3 sizes. Also both the WM Super Stunts (40 and 60) and a Morris Hobbies Jerry's Big Boy.
Sig Somethin' Extra.
GP Ultra Sport 60 and 1000.
GP Super Sportster 20,40,60, 90/120 and Bipe.
Sig Wonder.
Bridi/GP Kaos 40.
Ultimate Bipe (Dave Patrick at the moment).
Airtronics New Era III.
These are a few of my favorite planes. All of them are proven designs, and what I call honest flyers - no nasty surprises. If I could only have ONE - it would be very hard to choose between the Super Stunts 60 with a Saito 91, the Tiger 60 with a OS 61 two stroke, and the Big Stik 60 with a Saito 91. Those are the ones that make my face hurt, 'cuz I wear this huge goofy grin every time I fly one of them. On a bang-for-buck basis, the Super Stunts 40 is a clear winner - take the radio and engine out of a 40-sized trainer, add a servo so you can put two in the wing, spend a day assembling and you've got a great airplane. The only change I make from stock is to use a Dubro plastic main gear set, which eliminates the pogo landings caused by the included wire. I do the same on ARF trainers.
01-08-2008, 11:07 PM
#18
RE: semi symmetrical
Teachu2,
Try and find a Midwest Sweet Stik to add to your stable. It's a .40 size stik with a straight wing. IMHO (and several others whom I know who have had this kit) its the best flying stick to be kitted. I've had several and still have a set of plans to build another one some day.
Hogflyer
Try and find a Midwest Sweet Stik to add to your stable. It's a .40 size stik with a straight wing. IMHO (and several others whom I know who have had this kit) its the best flying stick to be kitted. I've had several and still have a set of plans to build another one some day.
Hogflyer
01-08-2008, 11:58 PM
#19
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Boiling Springs,
SC
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: semi symmetrical
i have an avistar and i love it. im am not an expert and it is my first glow plane but i can still fly it inverted about 15 feet off the ground
02-15-2008, 09:40 AM
#20
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Tucson,
AZ
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: semi symmetrical
Since October 2006 I have had in order
H9 Alpha 40
World Models SkyRaider Mach I
Great Planes Big Stik 40
Mini Ultra Stick
another Great Planes Big Stik 40
Nexstar Arf
Sig Kadet Senior
By a large margin the easiest plane to fly and land is the Sig Kadet Senior.
The worst is the Mini Ultra Stik closely followed by the Nexstar. Even though
they are not rated as trainers I thought the Big Stik 40's were the next easiest.
You pays your money ( Lots of it ) and you take your chances.
H9 Alpha 40
World Models SkyRaider Mach I
Great Planes Big Stik 40
Mini Ultra Stick
another Great Planes Big Stik 40
Nexstar Arf
Sig Kadet Senior
By a large margin the easiest plane to fly and land is the Sig Kadet Senior.
The worst is the Mini Ultra Stik closely followed by the Nexstar. Even though
they are not rated as trainers I thought the Big Stik 40's were the next easiest.
You pays your money ( Lots of it ) and you take your chances.
02-15-2008, 10:16 AM
#21
Senior Member
RE: semi symmetrical
I'd vote for the Tiger60 and the Ugly Stick.
If you're comfortable flying and you fly the model instead of just keeping it in sight, you really don't need to worry about getting anything labeled as a trainer.
If you're comfortable flying and you fly the model instead of just keeping it in sight, you really don't need to worry about getting anything labeled as a trainer.
02-15-2008, 10:40 AM
#22
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: littleplaceintheboonies,
ON, CANADA
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
RE: semi symmetrical
Consider a Cermark Graduate 40. It's a semi-semetrical wing - don't know for sure but it looks really nice. Will knife edge all day long aparently. Docile, nice looking, ultracote, 46 engine and $99 bucks - you can't go wrong. There's a review and video here:
http://www.rcgroups.com/links/index.php?id=4630
Going to buy one and fly the snot out of it this spring just for fun.(with my son who's still learning). That's the nice thing about cheap ARFs with cheap engines. You can fly like crazy and not worry!!!
BTW I'll be using a Tower 46 in it ($80). Great engines and CHEAP. I have had two 75's and they are amazing. Runs like a top, easy on fuel and cheap - $90 to $100. Can't beat it!
www.cermark.com/index.html
http://www.rcgroups.com/links/index.php?id=4630
Going to buy one and fly the snot out of it this spring just for fun.(with my son who's still learning). That's the nice thing about cheap ARFs with cheap engines. You can fly like crazy and not worry!!!
BTW I'll be using a Tower 46 in it ($80). Great engines and CHEAP. I have had two 75's and they are amazing. Runs like a top, easy on fuel and cheap - $90 to $100. Can't beat it!
www.cermark.com/index.html
02-15-2008, 11:06 AM
#23
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Garland, TX
Posts: 6,544
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: semi symmetrical
Definitely no shortage of opinions. I'll add one more.
The Hangar 9 Arrow 40 might be another good option.
http://www.horizonhobby.com/Products...ProdID=HAN2625
It is very similar to the Alpha, but it has semi-symmetrical airfoil. It is covered in Ultracoat and costs the same as the Alpha.
Like Ed said, the dihedral angle probably has more impact than airfoil on a trainer plane.
The Hangar 9 Arrow 40 might be another good option.
http://www.horizonhobby.com/Products...ProdID=HAN2625
It is very similar to the Alpha, but it has semi-symmetrical airfoil. It is covered in Ultracoat and costs the same as the Alpha.
Like Ed said, the dihedral angle probably has more impact than airfoil on a trainer plane.
02-16-2008, 12:49 PM
#24
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Hartford,
NY
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: semi symmetrical
Here is one more thrown in to the mix. An H-9 Tribute 36 arf. This was my 2nd plane and by using the low rates and expo it was a great transition plane. As I got more comfortable with it I first dialed down the expo then would only use low rates for takeoffs and landings. It flyes like a sport plane, slows down like a trainer and is capable of more than I am. It does need a little beefing up in the fuse. behind the rear of the wing and the front wing hold down plate needs some epoxy instead of the hot glue used at the factory. I personally love the way it flies and it builds quickly. It also doesn't take up much room to store or transport.
