Out in the Stix

Sorry BigSTIK40flier I will be more considerate next time

JohnW

My Feedback: (6)

13yroldpilot: You've listed a lot of planes designed for different flight performance. Hope this info helps you in your decision making process. You are looking at pursuing aerobatics? I'm not sure what you exactly mean by "any and all aerobatics."

If you mean traditional (non-3D), your choice is narrowed. While all the listed planes in your poll are aerobatic in some sense of the word, there are really only two that were specifically designed for traditional aerobatics; the Ultrasport and the Tracer. You might also consider the GP Venus. I have flown all three. I'd say start with the Ultrasport or Venus as they seems a bit more forgiving than the Tracer.

If you mean Fun Fly/3D aerobatic stuff, your choices on the list are really the Uproar or Something Extra. Again, I have flown both. They perform about the same but I think the SE's are more popular because of their looks.

The Tiger and 4* are semi-aerobatic, but they are kinda a cross between a trainer and a aerobatic plane. I've flown both. They will be hotter than your trainer, but won't perform like the other planes listed. These are really the only two planes listed that have some trainer like self recovery attributes, more so in the 4* than the Tiger. It is common to choose a plane like this for a second plane, but you don't have too. If you have good pilot skills with the trainer and learn quickly, you can skip this type of plane in the learning process and jump right to a more aerobatic plane. You might ask an excellent pilot at your field that has seen you fly their opinion of what type of plane you can handle.

Cheers

Out in the Stix

Thanks Monkeyboy,

Well I want to try to fly all of the styles of aerobatic. I have asked the pilots at my field they know my style of flying and siad the Sig Somethin' Extra would be good, but I just want to get an "insider's opinion" Thanks for your help,

-Dan

JohnW

My Feedback: (6)

It's hard to find a plane that will do all styles of aerobatics. Without going into too much detail, the problem is that different aerodynamics is required for those two styles. That is why 3D/fun fly types have low aspect ratios (stubby fat wings) and are short coupled (tail close to wing.) Traditional aerobatic planes have higher AR's, typically a bit of double taper or even straight trailing edge and a long moment. Most planes that claim to do both have made a compromise somewhere and probably don't do either very well. Of course there are exceptions and you can find planes that do both 3D and traditional aerobatics quite well. I have two planes that both excel at 3D and precision. However, none of the planes you listed would excel at both.

That said... The SE is a fine choice and I think you will enjoy that plane. Just keep in mind that it is really geared toward fun fly type flying. That is not to say that it won't fly most traditional aerobatics, it just won't do it anywhere close to what the Ultrasport/Tracer/Venus would. The flip side is the Ultrasport/Tracer/Venus won't do the fun fly stuff very well.

Maybe you need two second planes?

TWONeill

Iwent with the Super sportster ARF and a TT .46Pro pulling it. Flies great.

Out in the Stix

MonkeyBoy,

Thanks for your help and the short lesson. Two second planes sounds like a wonderfull idea. It is sounds like to me that it would be better to learn fun fly aerobatics before 3D? Am I right? Have you built the SE?

mrjbernard

What do you all think about the H9 Aresti 40? Looks sharp. Is it quality? Is good as a 2nd?

Out in the Stix

i've never seen the H9 Aresti 40. What is H9's website URL

kidkadet

My Feedback: (1)

The aresti is a great flying plane but unless you are a really good pilot it is a little hot for a 2nd plane. But I think that if you have been flying your trainer for a long time and can fly it with the controls maxed out give it a try. I don't think you have to get a traditional " second plane" if you had a good instructor for the first one.

JuniorPilot

13yroldpilot, From what I have been reading it sounds like a GP Dazzler or a TH Uproar (both .40) would be an ideal choice for you. I just watched the maiden flight on a Dazzler yesterday my friend bought and built the kit. He says it is a very good first kit to build and a very stable but very aerobatic flyer! Now I have not seen or know someone with an Uproar. I in the near future (when I have money) am going to get an uproar...the uproar is pritty much the Tower Hobbies copy of the dazzler telling from the looks and the style and the dimensions of the plane...Just my two cents but if those aren't in your mind at all then I would say go with the Tiger2! I have one flies great everyone says they fly great and they are very aerobatic my friends brother does almost everything with his tiger...Hovering, rolling circles, knife edge, snap rolls ect ect! And he has only been flying for one year this is his second!!

Out in the Stix

Thanks Chris, I will keep your two cents inmind. What website can find the Dazzler?

Out in the Stix

Question. If I were to get the SE could I put flaps on it?

kidkadet

My Feedback: (1)

here is a link to the dazzler. It's a great plane.

GP Dazzler

mrjbernard

13yroldpilot,

Here's the link to the Hangar 9, Aresti 40.

http://horizon.hobbyshopnow.com/prod...p?prod=HAN2175

I'm leaning towards taking bigger steps between planes while managing the transition via control throw limits and servo rates. I think it also helps me that I have past experience as a private pilot and have a good feel for the dynamics of flight (and landings!). Also, I like model planes that look like real planes (versus stick-style planes). The Super Sportster and SE fall into that category, too - just looking at all possible options.

Out in the Stix

I like the looks of the Aresti .40 I am currently working on my student certificate (had my first flying time under a CFI two Saturdays ago.) I have had about 5-6 hours fullsize flying experiance prior.

JEH

I would have to say the 4* but I'd go with the .60 size. Have one with a tower .75 in it and it really hauls yet lands nice and slow.

Crashem

Might want to rethink that a little

JohnW

My Feedback: (6)

13yrold: In many respects fun fly stuff is really 3D. I was trying to avoid an issue by mentioning both. What one calls "3D" another will call something else. So, as for learning fun fly before 3D... they are basically the same thing to most. I'd say you should have a basic handle on traditional aerobatics before learning 3D/Fun fly. It sounds like you already have some basics aerobatic skills, so if you want to learn 3D, go for it.

There is no need for flaps on any fun fly type plane. They (fun fly types like the SE, uproar, etc) typically have very high lift / high drag wings to begin with, flaps won't add much to what is already there. You can however use a flaperon mix, which causes both ailerons to move in conjunction with the elevator. Flaperon will often improve pitch control on a fun fly plane. You can also use an airbrake (raise both ailerons) to control speed in very steep dives.

Yes, I have built and flown a Sig SE.

mrjbernard

Well Crashem, I certainly don't believe that makes me a pro. However I do have quite a bit of flight experience and THINK that, just maybe, that might help me understand how to take off, turn, fly straight and level, control power, fly an approach, set up for landing and avoid/recover from stalls with ANY model.

How about setting that whole point aside and answering this - do you think it is justfied to buy a little more plane, but plan to fly it tamely for awhile (via short throws and slow rates) rather than tippy-toeing through one model after another? If not, why then?

Out in the Stix

Thanks MonkeyBoy,

I am beginning to lean tourds the SE even more. How was the building process? Were there any abnormal diffculties? Anything that you did to the model?

P.S. If I lean anymore I might fall over!!

JohnW

My Feedback: (6)

mrjbernard: It has been my experience that being able to fly a full scale, i.e. real people carrying plane, does not help RC pilot skills much. The pilot may have a better understanding of the flight dynamics, but they still must learn to fly RC planes just like everyone else. While the physics of flight is the same, your feedback is not. You get no instruments with RC and your visual clues are totally different. I won't speak for Crashem, but I think that may be what he was implying.

13yearold: The SE is an easy build. Don't bother with the mods you may have seen on RCU, enlarged rudder, etc. The SE has some design issues that all but prevent level knife edge flight. Many wrongly enlarge the rudder thinking it will improve knife edge. The problem with SE's poor knife edge performance is the lack of fuselage area in front of the CG, not the rudder. I know it is tempting to make mods, but just build it exactly as the plans indicate and you'll have a nice flying plane.

Out in the Stix

Thanks MonkeyBoy, I think the leaning tower of danzza has just fallen in favor of the SE. Now all I need is money! Can the SE perform most of all of the traditional aerobatics well?

Scar

My Feedback: (3)

Just an alternative, here. A student who soloed about 2 months ago decided to go with something different. We were making suggestions like the four-star and the SE, of which there are a great plenty.

Said student did his own research and identified the Bruce Tharp Venture 60 as his choice. It came in two weeks ago, and I made the maiden flight on it last night. Then the former student put two flights on it (in an 8 mph crosswind.) Nice flying, capable plane.

This student built his own LT40 kit, and built this kit, both quite nicely. Both looked good, covered nice, etc. I was surprised how fast he built this Venture 60. I would not have known about this plane, had he not chosen it. At this point, I will recommend the plane to any flyer who wants something different or a first low-wing taildragger. (This one has a Tower 60, with four channels.)

Good luck,
Dave Olson

Out in the Stix

Scar, What is the website for the said plane?

JohnW

My Feedback: (6)

13yrold: The SE can sort-of do traditional aerobatics. It has no problems with loops/rolls, but snaps/spins it is a little weak on and it will not do knife edge well at all. The snaps/spins issue is due to the typically fun fly thick airfoil that doesn't like to stall. The KE issue is due to lack of fuse area forward of the CG. This is what I was kinda getting at in a previous post. There is no universal perfect plane. There are always compromises. It will be hard to find a 2nd plane that excels at both 3D and traditional aerobaitcs. I only have two that can do 3D and traditional aerobatics quite well, both are beyond what I reccomend for a 2nd plane.

If you like the SE and can live with the fact that it will be a little weak in the snap/spin/KE department, get it. It is a fun plane.