NorfolkSouthern

I have seen my share of inquiries here about what some novices prefer after having learned on a trainer. The primary and secondary trainers recommended are quite obviously spelled out in Ken's list. What I'm looking for here, though, are some of the most challenging and demanding planes to fly, even when properly set up and balanced, that are currently in production. They would be the ones you would least recommend, that would not mandate a turbine waiver. Electric or glow, it's all game. Why not have some fun?

I could begin with my Tango 40. Although it may look a lot like a trainer, it's a taildragger with close elevator and rudder coupling. Response is quick and can be a little twitchy. Ground handling can either be a wrestling match (I had to repair the fuselage after the first maiden attempt), or an easy greased takeoff depending on the wind, humidity, and other variables. It's like Forest Gump's box of chocolates. Once it's up, getting back in one piece is easy as long as you can fly by reflex and you don't have to think before you move the sticks, sort of like riding a bicycle. Its that one little critter that still makes me a little nervous when I take it out, even though I have no problem handling my scale Citabria and Great Planes Rapture 40. It's still an unbeatable blast in flight, and its personality only adds to the charm .

So, on a good day when you want "a little shot of that whisky", what would be the snarliest, meanest tempered little critter that bites the hardest without letting go in your collection? I am sure some of us have a skeleton or two in the closet. Inspiring Sig Wonder owners want to know!

NorfolkSouthern

w8ye

My Feedback: (16)

I taught my grand son-in-law how to fly with a Ultra Stick 40 with a buddy box 4 channel system and the rates were rather quick. Needless to say he did not solo in three flights but he did learn - eventually solo'd and then flew several different kinds of planes on his on. It was what I had available at the time.

He's very proud to be his own man when it comes to flying models. There was no transition to low wing or tail dragger nor wind. He had essentially already been there. Not long after he solo'd he took a trip 750 miles away to the western U.P. to visit his folks and he and his dad went flying. He showed his dad how it was done.

HighPlains

My Feedback: (1)

Duraplane, hands down. No upside to it's performance. I'd rather tie a string to a rock and just twirl it around my head.

NorfolkSouthern

I saw a couple incidents with the infamous Hangar-9 Raptor. One was at a grass strip, and the plane was all stock right down to the prop. The student was one of the club's seniority members, so he had some flight experience but wanted something more aerobatic. The instructor tuned the engine, used most of the runway to get airborne, and trimmed it out. No loops, no rolls, nothing specacular. The student never got the box. The instructor remarked that the plane was no fun to fly and that he had to use all the power available to keep it flying. That's the last I saw of that plane. Then this last Summer, I saw another student at a different club with the same make and model, only in the GREY color [X(] . One of the jet jocks had too much fun trying to undo some of mixes the guy programmed into the radio; it didn't fly that day.

NorfolkSouthern

txaggie08

There's a white one on consignment at the LHS here in college Station...... I wouldn't want to learn with.

w8ye

My Feedback: (16)

I have a Duraplane that flies rather nicely. It is good in the wind

NorfolkSouthern

It looks nice, w8ye, and thanks for your input. I would like to see some stories, where a beginner brings something to the field that's not a trainer at all. Something beyond the Mustang PTS in full garb. I would like to see if anybody experienced someone with, say, a bipe with high wing-loading. It's a little short, but I do have a story to tell.....

Back in 1987, I was a student at the University of New Mexico, having just finished for the Summer. I remember frequenting a hobby shop, saving up some money to buy a kit. Hanging from the ceiling was a .60 sized Pitts Special, done in the customary red and white theme with blue and white checkers under the wings. The plane looked good, but was starting to show its age. I'm not sure who made the kit, all I know is that the price was right for a complete build.

One day, I was out to the field watching the pilots do their routine. That's when I saw a pickup truck pull up, with about three construction workers with more money than sense. And what did I see in the bed??? Keep in mind, that none of these guys have ever flown before, let alone seen a radio. And they were hoping to get one of the instructors to show them how to operate that thing. Lucky for them, they never got the engine started. Back in those days, biplanes like the Pitts were heavy for their size, flew fast, had short glide ratios, and the reliability of the engine made the difference between splinters and an intact plane. Unless, of course, the pilot was highly skilled in keeping it close and landing on a short field should the uneventful take place. I would have really liked seeing what would transpire had they been successful at getting the engine to run! For all I know, it's probably been converted into chandelier long ago. Has anybody ever attempted to teach on an outfit like this? Has anybody had a similar experience?

NorfolkSouthern

w8ye

My Feedback: (16)

The worst flying planes I've ever seen are the WWI biplanes and Triplanes.

They seem to have more drag than lift when the engine is off
The tail gets blanked out when the nose is up during landing
There's just a tail skid so no steering until you can get the tail up

They are awful in a cross wind

But my fear that has shown up more often than not is the newbe with the P51 showing up at the field. That has to be the most beautiful plane ever made but it is not generally as easy to fly as its looks are good.

NorfolkSouthern

The Mustang. Yes, I have heard stories of people bringing them as well to the club, but never saw that happen personally. On the simulator, I found the Mustang PTS in full sport mode with no training aids to be more of a challenge to land than the Great Planes (Top-Flite) version. It likes to bounce, unless I add full down elevator after the mains touch (is it different in real life?). Good throttle management and a shallow approach is very helpful here. It will spin with too much elevator while coming in too slow and steep. Too much rudder in a steep bank will make it drop like a rock.

How about a Christen Eagle or Cap 232 in comparison?

NorfolkSouthern

w8ye

My Feedback: (16)

The PTS Mustangs I've seen at the field were easy to fly after you got the needle stops removed in the Evolution engine

Seen a lot of snaps close to the ground from Decathlons and Extra style planes in past years

NorfolkSouthern

The Citabria I have tends to display some good habits, but using the rudder helps quite a bit. I have not experienced any stalls, but others at the field attributed that to my flying experience and skills. I doubt if I would have the ability to judge how well a new pilot can handle it. I do know that it seems to handle like a Cub, and the instructors at my field recommend the Piper as a third plane at best. They even went as far as saying that a Cessna is closer to being a trainer because of the tricycle gear and longer tail movement. I got bit by one of those once on a steep takeoff, and that's when I learned something about elevator control and how to get the most out of a crashed fuselage. It never quite flew the same.

As an intermediate or second plane, Cubs tend to be the most controversial. People either love them, or hate them. I find them easy, while some others I'm sure find them to be difficult.

NorfolkSouthern

jetmech05

anything PTS

Rudolph Hart

The one he's sitting in the back seat of right now?

w8ye

My Feedback: (16)

There's a world of difference between a Decathlon and a Citabria wing. The Decathlon has a symmetrical airfoil and little if any dihedral and for some reason some versions of the Decathlon models are bad about dropping a wing on final approach. But the fuselages are very much alike.

A Citabria should fly almost like a Cub or maybe even better

I never had any trouble with a Cub but I've sure seen guys at the field have a lot of trouble keeping them straight on the ground.

Regent

I agree with NorforkSouthern on the Raptor. We had a novice pilot show up at the field with a new Raptor and wanted some help getting it set up and training. I went over the plane and run a couple of tanks through it before I took it up. It was a pig. I checked the stall characteristics at altitude and decided that I would have to keep the speed up on final. It took me two passes before I got it on the ground and for the next flight I turned it over to one of the other senior pilots. Even with a few words of warning he stalled it about two feet off the ground on landing and broke the nose off right at the second bulkhead. The new pilot was very disappointed and that was the last we ever saw of him.

There is one plane that I have never flown and have refused the opportunity when offered. That is the GeeBee. I have never seen one complete the first flight. They always look like a bull ride at the rodeo before they end up as a pile of sticks.

As trainers go my least favorite is the NextStar. It is a flyable airplane but goes at the bottom of my list as a trainer. At the top of my trainer list is the SIG LT-40. Anyone that can’t learn to fly that will never be able to fly at all. The Senior and Seniorita round out the top three.

DavidAgar

My Feedback: (108)

I have to go with the Dura Plane. I am speaking of the old one that had the fuselage and wings all built with the coro plast. Every flight was an adventure as the trims changed every time you flew it. Good Luck, Dave

Spacemonkey71

I've seen a couple of doozies over the summer. One was a tango flown by a guy who hadn't been flying a month (and he crashed TWO planes in that month!) - the results were expected; he banked too tight, went into a spiral and BLAP![:@] no more plane. I also saw a guy flying a P38,,,, it looked like he was playing super mario brothers with the sticks. I've never tried to synchronize and get 2 engines running complimentary, but it looks like there's a billion things that can go wrong and put you in the weeds. (I should probably amend this to say "all twin engines", but I haven't seen too many)

The most suprising I've ever seen is the Cub - the fuselage of these planes have a very large cross section that in wind more than 3-5mph will make it crab ALOT. I didn't really think about this one being hard to fly until I started paying attention to a guy one afternoon and, even though the wind wasn't "bad", you could visually observe the plane being blown left and right.

Then there's the Edge 260/540/etc.. + the sukhoi and Yak acrobatic sports planes - in the hands of a novice, these plane's lifespan can be measured with an egg timer. Some people say they aren't hard to fly, but these seem to be the same people with 10 years of experience

Now as for easiest, I'd have to vote in the Parkzone Corsair or T28 - these are so simple even "I" managed a landing!!!

An instructor's nightmare? I'd have to say the guy who shows up for his 1st or 2nd lesson with ANY warbird (aside from Parkzone). The wing loading is so high and there's almost no dihedral to self correct. Couple that with the pure speed most of these have and you're sure to pound it in to a tree, building, car, or ground - unless you're STUPID lucky When I 1st started, before I'd ever flown, I thought I wanted a P40 w/ a 40-46 glow engine. Luckily, a pilot I met told me EXACTLY what would happen and why in very short order and I'm very glad I listened. That guy probably saved me $150+ and the depression of crashing my 1st plane. Thank God for good instructors!!!! Mouth shut, ears turned on, and eyes WIDE open is the sign of a good student. I try to listen and UNDERSTAND everything that is said,,, I also try to have an VERY GOOD pilot on the buddy box with reflexes like a ferret after a Starbucks run No crashes so far, but it's not from lack of trying

Scar

My Feedback: (3)

One of the instructors put a T-6 in the air, brought by a beginner. This was back in the kit days, and let me tell you, it was possible for new people to bring kit-built planes to the field that were far less desirable than most ARFs now available. That T-6 was heavy and underpowered, and two other experienced people refused to put it in the air for the guy. When the instructor agreed, he checked it over and made a takeoff roll with too much elevator, and didn't back off quick enough. It sort of leaped into the air, then snapped into the ground. One of the guys who refused to fly it said "Too bad he didn't get it up a little higher...".

I think a GeeBee R2 would fit the description of what you're asking. Especially if underpowered.

Dave Olson

Villa

A few years ago a fellow pilot asked me to fly his plane. I have never known the model name. It was a 46 size plane with trike gear. At the back of the fuselage it had two false jet engines sticking out the side of the fuselage like an Airforce A-10, and I believe it had a "T" type tail (hor stab on top). I was not enthused over doing the test flight. I checked the CG and everything else and took it off. It seemed to be OK in the air. Well, eventually it would not respond in an expected manner. It actually scared me and I was not in a mood to experiment. I landed it and hoped not to see it again. About a year later this fellow asked me again to take it up and somehow I agreed. In a climbing turn(or perhapse in a shallow diving turn, I just cannot remember) the plane would not react in an expected manner. I actually lost control and did not know what to do so I went to idle, regained control and landed it. I told the fellow that I thought there was something wrong with the plane but I did not know what it might be, and that I would NOT fly that plane again. I think those dummy jet engines were acting like an air brake. If it was my plane I would have figure it out even if I totaled it.

Jetdesign

My Feedback: (8)

when the first raptor showed up at my field, everyone gathered around in admiration. now when one shows up, everyone (instructors) runs.

Nathan King

Interesting. I preflighted flew the Raptor for a club member some time ago. It flew fine and I was able to grease it in on the first try. That said, I would NOT want to teach a completely green pilot on it. I would agree that the large WWI biplanes are challenging. Flying an airplane with a tailskid on an asphalt runway in a crosswind is not my idea of fun. The large frontal area and multiple wings make for lots of form drag and induced drag (respectively). I've seen more than one WWII warbird go down when trying to land due to nothing other than pilot error. I've personally flown and landed a P-38 on a single engine. The critical engine (left engine) failed due to old plumbing that sucked in air. It was woefully underpowered on a single engine, and there was negative climb performance. Got it down gently on the runway using the same engine out techniques that I was taught for full-scale twins, but wasn't fun. It was probably the most difficult thing I've done in my modeling career.

Some students have primary trainers and I still fear teaching them. There's more to teaching than the airplane.....

One student had an airplane I called the "Jinx." I would meticulously preflight the thing and find nothing wrong. Once it was in the air all heck seemed to break loose. It once had an aileron stuck in the down position right after takeoff, that was fun. Lift off the ground and have the thing make an ever increasing bank. The only way to shallow the bank was to pitch down to get enough air over the working aileron to counteract the broken one. Turning could only be done in one direction. The touchdown on that flight was firm.

daveopam

My Feedback: (9)

I have flown 2 different Raptors. Both were/are terrible. The power is the biggest issue. One of these has a Rossi 45 and Macs pipe on it. With a 60 it might be fun. With a 45 even a split "S" is hard to gain enough alt without stalling it. No way would I try and teach someone to fly on one of these.

David

blvdbuzzard

Way back when I was 2nd flight instructor for the club. You get to see all sorts of things come to the field.

I did teach a guy to fly with a Goldberg Chipmunk. It does handle well at slow speeds. I had the dual rates up and lots of expo for him. He did take his time in learning. Took him about 4 months to do his first take off. He flew that plane until it was a sponge. It was so fuel soaked, the covering had blisters.

I had a big problem with a club member who would tech people with a 86 inch old timer that flew at about 4 mph. It was a Quaker Flash type of plane. Yes it flew great. Nice and slow and easy for the student to fly. Problem was, they thought they could fly anything after soloing on it. The next plane they brought would be a War bird, KAOS, Extra, or some other responsive plane and promptly plant it after about 5 seconds of air time.

Favorite trainer has to be the Falcon 56, any of them, mark I, mark II or the mark III. I have taught a bunch with the Tower Trainer 60.

Worst plane I have seen some one bring to the field to be trained on, a Quickie 500. He said he got a good deal on it. We had fun flying it. We showed him how fast it went. He understood he needed something with a little less speed.


Dru.

w8ye

My Feedback: (16)

There were two of us out at the field one afternoon when this guy we had never seen before showed up with a nice looking red Viper (Quickee) 500 with a Magnum GP40 and four channel transmitter. After talking to him it came out that he was the plant manager of a local factory where my wife worked.
http://www.greatplanes.com/airplanes/gpma1265.html

He had newbe written all over him and I didn't figure the odds for success were too good for obviously someone had put it together for him. By the way the plane looked nice and little flown. He did have his own quart of fuel and said that he could fly it. So we started the engine for him using my glow booster and starter. Away he went for 10 min and seemed to do reasonably well with not a scary moment. He put his plane and fuel back in the car and left never to be seen again.

So I guess a racey plane can fly gently if set up correctly?

NorfolkSouthern

He was a plant manager, so a quick learner, perhaps? I'm willing to bet that he must have had some experience prior to this, or perhaps he was extremely deft at the sticks. You have to be familiar with dual rates, as the instructions call for high rates on takeoffs and landings, except during flight. I would say, that was a highly unusal event, w8ye.

NorfolkSouthern