critterhunter

Yea, you can glue slabs together no problem. Just use a little Gorilla Glue or even 3M Spray Glue to join them, but put weights on it to hold things together until it dries. My Home Depot has the white EPS foam all the way up to 2" thick and yours should too. No covering material is on it like the above pictures or what Foam Flyer shows. You could also get the pink or blue 2" thick stuff. A little heavier but stronger. I prefer the 2" because it's the perfect width for the fuse to help protect the battery and so on.

On another note...

And I thought Tower Pro 30 amp ESCs for $14 were cheap (but good)! Looks like another price barrier has fallen. How about $9 30 amp ESCs, $10 40 amp ESCs, and $12 50 amp ones...

http://www.hobbycity.com/hobbycity/s...h=&idSupplier=

And, if you want the cheapest charger on the market but it still does everything you'll ever need for lipos (well, 99.9 percent of the things you'd want...wish it had a capacity display and finer charging amp rate control), check out this one for only $25. A friend uses it and I decided to buy one for a second charger to my Celectra after seeing how well it works. It even recovers packs that are too far out of balance for other chargers, even with a balancing function that isn't like the HXT's. For instance, I had one pack that was so far out of balance due to a weaker cell that my Blinky couldn't hold the other two cells low enough to allow the weak one to catch up. This is dangerous because now the total voltage is still lower than a charged pack while two cells are going higher in voltage than they should be allowed to be.

The HXT charger will charge each cell seperately (your balance plug on your battery plugs into it) and cut them off individualy as each reaches peak. No need for a balancer like the Blinky to use with it since it balances the cells via the individual cell charging process. I've also read that it tends to be faster than many other chargers since it uses this method. For example, using a serial charge on my Celectra (charged through the deans plug) I have Blinky plugged into the balancing plug (called a Molex) on the pack which keeps trying to draw the voltage down on two cells to keep it at the same level of charge as the lowest one. This can slow down the charging process.
http://www.hobbycity.com/hobbycity/s...idProduct=2055

calvino

thanks crit , I am also thinkin of what happens when you go to hotwire the foam and you hit the glue??? your prob better off with 1.5" and 2" being used wherever needed, ya, didn't see the other stuff that is blue, pink..... hey, that is what monocote and/or tape is for, FYI fillament tape works AWESOME for taping up wings, as well as any old cheap packing tape

LlamaFragments

Hellozzzzz, I haven't posted for a while. I don't have pictures yet, but I made the booms and the horizontal stabilizers tonight. They are alright. I got my radio and servos yesterday and I'll have motor/battery/ESC soon.

Question: what gauge wire do you use for the aileron control links?

critterhunter

If you want to glue foam together for a thicker fuse or something first cut the two halves out and sand them to match, then glue them together. If you'd rather glue them together first before doing the finishing sanding then just don't put glue near the edges of the foam. Or, use 3M spray glue and hot wiring or sanding won't be a problem if you hit it.

critterhunter

Good to hear. I use 2-56 fully threaded control rods for all my builds. It beats solder clevises or buying and using a Z-bender with piano wire. Just thread some nylon clevises on your control rod that is cut down to the length you want and you're all done. Couldn't be easier, and it allows you to adjust it if need be. Z-bender tools and thin wire aren't needed unless you are doing a really small and light build like a front yard flyer or something. Solder clevises are a disaster waiting to happen. I have pretty good soldering skills and yet I lost a Stryker on it's maiden due to those things.

I'll be fishing off So #4's build tonight. As said, I flew it a few weeks back but it was quickly made flight able by taping on the wires and such. I've got it really done well now with sunk wires, shorter nose, etc. I've been taking pictures and will be throwing up the rest of the build steps and such to go along with what you saw starting on page one. Final dimensions as well. I think the fuse turned out to be about 21 and a half inches long, but remember my motor is over the wing.

Can't stress how great these HXT900 servos are for only $4. They'll work with most park flyers from small to rather large. Only time I'll go bigger now is for elevator and maybe ailerons on a build with about a 4 foot wingspan or larger.

Check out this link...A free build plan for the OV-10 Bronco made from depron. Fits well into the theme of this thread since it's a similar looking plane...

http://www.hammermodels.com/Download.html
d

saucerguy

Good idea to create a part two of this Critterhunter, that other one was simply huge, kind of ominous for someone that hasn't been involved with it from the beginning.

I put together the latest so, using the gear from a cheezy rat shack rtf called the Night Flyer. It's using a coil instead of a servo, the wingspan is 19.5" on this one since it was all scaled down. There is a resister, or diod looking thing soldered onto the stock 180 motor, I had to reverse it's direction in order to rewire it to reverse the direction of the motor, the original plane was a tractor, but thought I'd throw in that tidbit for those that are wanting to reuse gear from that particular plane. It never flew at all just FYI, so don't go out and buy it thinking it's anything flyable at all, I pretty much knew this from the beginning, I wanted the LED module it came with mainly.

This version of So is only 2 channel, so it will be a balancing act, I have the COG set at the aft 20% of the wing since there is no elevator, which means, full thrust should get it to climb. I also went with the one aileron on it, since that is the only channel that was not used up for it. I used the table saw to cut up the basic stock, sanded the rest by hand, I couldn't see myself dragging out my wire cutter for such a small job, I did a little revison since the last time I showed it, I went with a chunk of EPP for the nose section, that's going to help it handle some abuse I also gave it a couple of wingtips, one of them is attached the the aileron so I hopefully will get greater authority as a control surface now. I have yet to maiden it, I'm in build mode, have several planes ready for their maidens and am working on more as well.

Along all of the So.'s that I've built and kept it somewhat close to the original specs and design, they all have flown quite well, I still have a couple of them tucked away in my rafters for fun in the future with enough reinforcement, you can make them last pretty much forever. I also like how Critter mentions it's ability to stop on a time, change direction and continue on it's new path, literally, that's how this plane performs, it's funny, almost feels like you are driving rather then flying at that point. The original specs call for a speed 400, that is a good combo for you new pilots, it's fast enough to enjoy, but not too quick, I geared mine up with brushed, geared 370's and 390's with various props as well. If you go that route, be sure to build light, which means, stay closer to the original specs. If you go brushless and lipo, it will turn this plane into something alot more enjoyable for us more advanced pilots. From what I've learned on my past versions, stay away from using coroplast or anything heavy for the tail section, I also tuck my motor's just under the aft end of the wing, leaving enough room for the prop to stick out, this allows me to use the lighter packs and get the COG correct. If you aren't sure about what you are doing, leave extra room in the nose to let you adjust where the battery pack finally will be mounted. Also, if you carve out an area for it's final placement, be sure to line the walls of it with balsa stock, or something that's going to keep it's shape since the intertia from the battery during hard landings as well as simply replacing the pack on a regular basis will weaken up that particular spot.

I look forward to hearing more from you guys on this bird, I think everybody should have one, they are cheap, easy to build and fly and when done right, will last a very long time. FoamFlyer stumbled on this particular design, it's proven itself to him as well as us.

LlamaFragments

Yay! I am pretty much done with foam cutting now, I basically just have to wait for battery, esc and motor from HobbyCity to come. No pictures.

How did you guys link the aileron servos? I am completely baffled as to how to do it.

calvino

they probabaly used a piece of wire with a Z bend in it, or an EZ link to hook up the servo to the control arm dealie, get it, you can also use EZ links for more "fine tuning" adjustments[8D], I am considering this kindof conversion on a foam chuck glider we got as another project

critterhunter

Exactly why I wanted to create a new thread. I can blame a lot of the old one's murk to us learning as we went but most of it was my tendency to ramble on. I wanted a thread with what we learned as condensed and to the point (as is possible for me) on the steps to building the tools as well as the plane. Which reminds me, somebody dig up the info in the old thread on the flight simulator for the So 11. That was great stuff.

Great job on the little So! Give us some more pictures and updates on it's maiden.

Yea, if you have the COG at around 2" the plane had great "stop and turn around on a dime" ability. So #3 was very nose heavy which eliminated that feature, so be aware that you are probably way too nose heavy if you aren't seeing it. This plane flies like no other plane I've piloted. It's thick (high lift) clark-y airfoil and huge h-stab, along with the increased stability of the v-stabs, makes for some excellent slow speed crawl ability...the high level of drag on the plane also helping to keep it slow when you want to. Even with builds #1 through #3 being of mine being around 27 ounces or so they still had good lift at low speeds.

I agree on strengthening the battery comparment if you don't have a carbon tube nose to tail in the belly to prevent the front of the fuse from crushing. On build #4 I lined the battery chamber with thin ply. Only carbon I used on this build was one arrow shaft in the wing, but again I'm using really dense EPS. I also got away with using only one strip of strapping tape on the belly to top of fuse, then went back over that with Tyvek paper. The Tyvek holds paint FOR GOOD with no flaking and that's why I wanted it over the Extreme tape on the belly. The sides of the fuse as well as the bottom of the booms and outside sides of them are in Tyvek paper as well, as is the entire wing top/bottom. This stuff is VERY strong, won't rip or stretch like Monocoat, and like I said the paint aint coming off this stuff. It is heavier then typical coverings but I don't care when it's that strong. Tyvek tape is my new favorite over clear packing tape for those things, like taping on the control hinges. It sticks much better than box tape and there is no need for 3M spray glue. H20 paint is what I prefer on foam as it won't melt.

I got So #4 in the air Sunday and it flew well. Second flight I smoked the BP21 custom wind so I'm going to give it a little more venting under the cowl when it's re-winded. I wanted a re-wind anyway because the 1260 k/v custom wind (to keep the amps down on my old Common Sense packs) was a little too slow on the 8x4 APC E. It's going to be wound this time about halfway between that and the 1760 k/v of the stock BP21 wind, so about 1500 k/v this time. I'll either settle on a 8x4 E or a 7x6SF prop and the amps will probably be around 14 to 18 somewhere. The stock 1760 k/v of the BP21 is just about perfect for this plane. An 8x4 will give you decent speed and tons of torque. A 7x6SF will pop the amps up from around 13 to about 16. Speed will be much better and torque will still be decent. Fisher prefers the 7x4 prop and it will for sure run smoother on that.

I'll be throwing some pictures up in a day or two of the rest of the build steps, final dimensions, and AUW weight. Wait to you see the funky paint job on this puppy. I'll give you a hint....it's either going to be called the Sand Cow or Sand Leppard. Maybe Ringworm.

critterhunter

Did I throw pictures up yet of those on the first or second page? If not, don't worry...I'll be throwing some up. I want to see pictures!

saucerguy

I think the main thing to keep in mind is learning how to "feel" where the servo's are supposed to be intially. You want to be sure you have plenty of depth in the foam, so find the high spot on your airfoil, and you can go one of two ways to mount it. One is to simply cut out or melt a cavity to allow the servo to sink into it, hit it with some hot glue and it's mounted in place, another is to create that cavity, then glue some light ply along the area where you are going to screw in the servo to the wing. This allows them to be removable. From there, cut your pushrod stock, I prefer a z bends to connect to the control horn, and ez connects for connecting to the control arm, this allows for easy adjustment in in that area. Once you have everything lined up and connected, mark the area where you are going to mount your control horn, cut away any material needed and mount it to the aileron. Make sure your ez connector is not secured down, once you power up your plane, see if the servo is centered, if not, you can remove the control arm from the servo, put it in the proper area and mount and secure it all back down again. You are basically doing the same thing for the elevator control as well.

If you are going with two ailerons, you'll of course need a y cable, but it's the same process on both sides. The idea behind this plane is to break you out of preconcieved designs and patterns, to make you think and innovate on your own, after a while, you will be applying this to all planes that you own and it's quite rare I'll leave any plane stock per the manufactures reccomendations, I want things to work optimumly, not just good enough for the masses.

Swift427

First time on this thread.

Shouldn't this kind of plane be everyone's first time foamy build project either for their own use or for their son or grandson's introduction to 3 channel flying. It just makes so much sense.

In the FS One Flight Simulator Training program a world class instructor says you should learn to fly and master aileron control before mastering rudder control. It makes sense because the aileron and elevator are combined/mixed with the same control stick. Whether pylon racing or combat flying don't you need aileron control more than rudder control.

A simple 3-channel one aileron no rudder foamie is perfect for a newbie just learning to fly model airplanes. Why, Oh Why, doesn't HobbyZone market a similar RTF brushed or brushless foamy like this design instead of all those horrid V-tails. What advantage is there to HZ V-tails other than company profit margin. Hobby-Lobby offers a ton of plane choices, but I can't find one like your design that is so very practical and seemingly inexpensive to manufacture for a good enough profit margin. What Gives?

LlamaFragments

V-Tails are really cheap to make, they are just one piece of foam with a couple of dents in it. Ailerons require either two servos or a more complex linkage to do it, while a V-Tail is simply 2 servos hooked up to 2 control surfaces. The other reason is that rudder elevator can be better for a beginner in the beginning but not in the long run. That's because when you turn with a rudder it will stop turning when you release the stick. When you have ailerons, it will stay where you roll it to and only return by dihedral.
I don't know, I'm not very experienced with these things so what I just said might be bullpoop.

Either way, I used my extremely limited SketchUp experience to make a 3d model of the SoPlane! This might give a better idea of the plans to someone who had trouble reading it at first. Hope you like it!

http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehou...4fb98391e47feb

Oh yeah, and this is the BP-21 version of the plane with 2 2" ailerons.

Swift427

Are we all so indoctrinated with traditional 3-channel electric RTF marketing-osity that we are brainwashed to believe that a beginner needs to learn rudder control before aileron control?

The 3-channel RTF HZ Aerobird Swift V-tail is throttle/elevator/aileron control. The 3-channel RTF PZ Stryker is throttle/elevator/aileron control. They are both designed more for an intermediate to experienced pilot and not as a beginner aileron trainer. Can't anybody in the world manufacture and make a profit selling an RTF aileron trainer for a beginner? Why, oh why isn't there any RTF foamy aileron(1 or 2) trainer for a beginner manufactured in the world? Does the industry have a mental block? China produces all kinds of consumer goods dirt cheap so to say its more expensive to manufacture an aileron trainer for a beginner isn't a valid reason. Foamies with an inexpensive brushed motor is about as cheap as it gets. To equate putting even one aileron on a cheap foamy like putting an expensive saddle on an old nag is poor horse sense. I mean think how much money we've all spent as a beginner on toy planes and relatively inexpensive RTFs that we all thought were worthy of purchase at the time, but later trashed them as junk or don't fly them any more.

The typical LHS thinking is that because ailerons are more responsive(which is a good thing) you need to be at least an intermediate pilot to fly a plane with ailerons. Yet, a world class model airplane instructor doesn't even teach rudder control(except for ground takeoff steering) through all the basic in air training lessons, but rather 3-channel throttle/elevator/aileron control. It is only in the advanced training lessons that he first gives instruction on 4-channel throttle/elevator/aileron/rudder control for fancier 3D aerobatics like snap rolls and his trademark knife-edge slide that won him the 1998 TOC.

So, again I ask if HZ and PZ can market and sell a 3-channel RTF throttle/aileron/elevator electric for an intermediate to experienced pilot why can't any model manufacture in the WholeWideWorld market a 3-channel RTF throttle/aileron(1or2)/elevator foamy electric as a trainer for beginners???

Does 3-channel RTF electric LHS/manufacturing indoctrination have us believing that it's better/preferred for a beginner to learn to fly 3-channel with throttle/rudder/elevator control than throttle/aileron/elevator control???

Who do we believe? (1) The status quo of RTF electric LHS/marketing lingosity or (2) A world class instructor who's trademark Knife-Edge Slide (Pop-Up) won him the 1998 world's TournamentOfChampions prestigious flying honor. Remember we're talking about 3-channel RTF electrics and there are a ton of them on the market. If 4-channel glow/gas basic in the air training is t/a/e and advanced t/a/r/e why would beginner 3-channel electric t/r/e control be better than t/a/e control?

So, which 3-channel is better for instructing a beginner--throttle/rudder/elevator or throttle/aileron/elevator? The preferred launching method for both the Aerobird Swift and Stryker (intermediate to experienced pilots) is hand launching. So to say a beginner needs 4-channel rudder control, if for nothing more then takeoff steering isn't valid in this 21st Century of 3-channel RTF electrics.

Am I to believe that the one aileron 3-channel foamy you guys are building is only for intermediate to advanced pilots and not suited for use as a trainer? If that's the case then we'd have to assume that we are so indoctrinated we actually believe there is no such critter as a beginner aileron trainer. Isn't that in effect what 3-channel RTF electric marketing-osity would have us believe? What manufacture of 3-channel foamy RTFs will be the first to see the LIGHT?

critterhunter

Very good tips. I wrap my servos in a little masking tape on the bottom and sides and then glue them into the melted out chamber with just a little gorilla glue. Just enough to start foaming up the sides, but not enough to migrate over to the horn and seize it up. I also like to power up my servos to center them so I can then remove and adjust the control horn to the proper neutral point. This is also a good idea because you don't want to fire up the servo already glued into the foam and find out it's horn is moving the other way around the servo, ripping out foam.

I always adjust my rates to 125% and then move the servo around to make sure it's returning to the same neutral point, is not stripping when I put a load both ways on it (with my hand while moving the stick with the other), etc. I just want to make darn sure there isn't anything wrong with the servo because I hated the times I found out the newly completed bird needed servo surgery. The tape allows you to easily slit it and remove the servo. Once fixed, just stick it back into the same tape and then put a new piece or two over the cut to snug it back good. The Gorilla glue really helps to form up around and form a "custom" servo chamber. I've tried hot glue but by the time I put the amount in I want it's too hot and melts the chamber further. It's also much heavier than Gorilla glue.

After I've got the servo centered and glued in, I use a ruler to give me a straight line to the where the control horn will sit on the control surface (you want the horn's holes just over the hinge point for most and universal throw). Now I drill the horn screw holes into the surface (I normaly have carbon fiber in the foam under where these go for more strength, and like to tape over the carbon fiber/intended horn spot via the Tyvek tape control hinge I've already used to attach the flap to the plane). Putting tape on after your horn is already there is a pain.

Once I've got the horn in place I'll then fire the servos back up again (you should have made sure your trims were all at neutral the first time you did this above) and let them settle, then hitch a clevis/2-25 threaded rod to the servo's horn, hold the other end to the control's horn, mark off where I want to cut the rod (leave a little extra for adjustment), cut it and screw the other clevis on.

By the way, since I don't where the battery is going to sit until the plane is done, I always have way more than needed ESC-to-battery 14 gauge wire length. Obviously I don't want to solder up the male ESC Dean's Ultra plug until I've figured battery placement for COG purposes at the end and cut the ESC battery leads down to be just long enough. So, what I do is simply plug a male deans into my batter with wire leads soldered to the dean's that I can just twist to the ESC leads for a quick power up. I keep this plug handy with my charger for other things, such as charging batteries, etc.

Ailerons: On my JR600sx radio I don't need a Y harness. One aileron servo plugs into the aileron channel and the other into the flaps channel (channel 6?). I then set the radio for flapperon (I think) mixing mode and zero the flap switch's throws (positive and negative positions) to zero. What this does is cancel out the flap switch from adjusting the movement of the ailerons regardless of if the switch is accidently bumped one way or the other. Now the ailerons will act as ailerons. Interestingly enough, you could adjust the throws on the flap switch to move the ailerons slightly down (acting as flaps) to increase lift while landing or at low speeds. May try that some time. The advantage of using two channels for the ailerons is you can adjust the trim/etc of either aileron servo individualy. If you hooked both servos up to a Y harness adjustment to one's trim via the radio will also effect the other. In other words, you'd have to manualy adjust them via the clevises in some ways.

Swift427, printed out your messages to read later and reply to as I'm pressed for time. Thanks for contributing.

Swift427

Do you believe that the one aileron 3-channel foamy design in this thread is only for intermediate to advanced pilots and not suited for use as a trainer for a beginner? Are we to believe a 3-channel RTF 'aileron trainer' with fixed rudder is only for the more advanced and intermediate pilots as its too responsive/frustrating(even with one aileron and a lowly brushed motor) for use as a trainer for a beginner. How ridiculous, but isn't that in effect what 3-channel RTF electric marketing world is selling? What manufacture of 3-channel electric foamy RTFs will be the first to see the light--throttle/elevator/aileron with fixed rudder.

saucerguy

If the new pilot was very confident on a simulator, I could get him flying solo at the field from the get go and ditch the rudder control right off the bat. Here is the dynamic of what's going on though. The dihedral is a mandatory thing for new pilots since they are supposed to just nudge the plane along, compare it without one, and you are needing to make course corrections constantly, of which the new pilot will not be able to handle. This is why it's reccomended to have rudder/elevator control, there is a delayed response wagging the tail around allowing for recovery when making mistakes easier.

Here is the other side of the coin though, this plane is so easy to repair, and it's gentle on your gear, that you could learn to fly on it, even though you will be crashing for the first several flights pretty much guarenteed, at least you can make your own replacment parts. The gambit for new pilots in this market always has them buying replacement, proprietary parts, knowing full well, nobody else is going to supply them, the new pilot ends up spending alot more learning to fly then he needs to. I am a kit manufacturer, in fact, a couple of my lines are even shown at RCU in the new product area. I also have direct authorization from Foam Flyer to reproduce his planes for others, given, that these guys have no facilities, or capacity to build their own. If you need a kit to be created for you, by all means, send me a PM and we'll work something out, I do suggest at least attempting to build the original plane per the set plans, but if you don't have the capacity, I can always create a kit to it's specs for you.

Swift427

It sounds like you are contradicting yourself and that your justification for 3-channel t/e/r control over 3-channel t/e/a is just so much RTF 3-channel electric LHS marketing whether it be HorizonHobby, Hobby-Lobby, or any other manufacture of 3-channel RTF electrics that are naturally more motivated to pursue bottomline profit margin.

I'm posting the following reply on ozrcboy's thread and aejar's test flight for a possible book on electric flight. It's lengthy, but this thread by Critterhunter inspired me to go the Xtra mile.

One issue that needs ATTENTION that is not so consciously obvious, but possibly a major reason for your concern/post is the following. Because this conundrum is not so obvious it eludes many of us and is not easy to address in 25 words or less. This discussion is not about whether it is better for a beginner to buy a 3-channel or a 4-channel as his first trainer, but rather the general assessment of—3-channel RTF electrics(primarily foamies). Not 3-channel ARFs or 3-channel RR electrics or 3-channel PNP. The easiest/least relatively inexpensive plane for most everyone getting started in this hobby(that can withstand some abuse/crashing) is a 2-channel electric AeroHog foamy or a 3-channel RTF electric foamy from a seemingly endless pipeline of choices to satisfy every appetite and need—OR MAYBE NOT?

The following observation is from surfing RC websites and my own newbie experiences over the past 11 months—specifically �3-channel RTF electrics.’ A world class flight training instructor (first recognized for his signature Knife Edge maneuvers and winner of the 1998 coveted TOC—TournamentOfChampions) doesn’t teach rudder control(except for runway steering) in any of his basic flying lessons included in the FS ONE Simulator. His preference for the three most important channels for any beginner to concentrate on FIRST learning(once in the air or when hand launching) are throttle/elevator/aileron. He introduces his basic lessons by telling the viewers that they need to learn aileron control before rudder control. It’s only in the advanced lessons of 3D (snap rolls, knife edge slides, etc) that this top flight instructor introduces the viewer to rudder control (4-channel).

The reason I didn’t buy a 3-channel RTF SuperCub(even though the LHS thought I should) as my first plane was because it didn’t have ailerons. I thought I could save some money in the long run by buying the Aerobird Swift(3-channel RTF throttle/elevator/aileron) and the Stryker 27C(3-channel t/e/a) even though they are marketed for intermediate pilots. Everyone thinks they’re above average and besides I thought after several flights or after a few months I’d be an intermediate. I bought both planes as much for my son as myself so the generic plain Jane SuperCub didn’t look as appealing as the Aerobird Swift and Stryker. I thought the Stryker would be more enjoyable for my son to fly. He tried the flying the Stryker on the FS One Simulator, but kept crashing and so we decided to just go for the gusto. Well, you can probably guess what happened. A common train of thought among the jet set seems to be—“If you haven’t crashed lately you must be doing something wrong” so I just accepted our unfortunate experience as a part of the learning curve.

Critterhunter has a thread about how to make a bullet proof Stryker, and the official Stryker thread(s) with thousands of replies is a testimony to a prevalent pedal to the metal speed mentality. I find it interesting that Critterhunters latest thread in the FoamyForum is about building a one aileron fixed rudder foamy from scratch. This affordable plane looks to be the �perfect aileron trainer’ that has eluded our never-ending quest for a consensus on an affordable aileron electric trainer that can take some abuse and keep on ticking without ticking us off. Here is the link—[link]http://www.qnet.com/~skif/plane.html[/link] I can’t help but wonder if this is that elusive electric 3-channel aileron trainer the majority of us should have first crashed, repaired, modified and cut our teeth on before we ever gave in to our burning desire for a Stryker or some other cool colorful looking bird. Enquiring minds would like to know if Critterhunter finally got feedup repairing, modifying, repairing, modifying, … his Stryker to the point that he is now going back to the basics and building the kind of plane that for many a newbie would have been much better than the one that caught their eye or the eye of the person that got them interested in the hobby. Why doesn’t HobbyZone, ParkZone, Hobby-Lobby, or any company in the WholeWideWorld market a RTF 3-channel throttle/elevator/aileron(1or2) electric foamy???

Whether it was me or other contributors to these electric forums many of us jumped in and bought a plane that was probably money that should have been spent on a RTF 3-channel t/e/a electric foamy trainer, except there isn’t a readily available supply, if one even exists. Isn’t this the primary reason why forum after forum we have a continous barrage of newbies and others wondering/opinonating what’s the better 3-channel RTF electric trainer for the money. And even more perplexing/troublesome is the engraining preponderance that 3-channel RTF aileron electrics are only for more advanced pilots and that beginners need to master rudder control before aileron.

What I’m noticing in some of these forum threads is that some are going back to the basics and find more enjoyment flying a plane like an EasyStar after experiencing too many crashes and hours spent repairing and modifying a plane like an Aerobird Swift or Stryker. It’s now apparent to me that a brushless SuperCub with ailerons and a fixed rudder would be a very suitable aileron trainer with the option to someday upgrade it to 4-channel t/e/a/r. Unfortunately, it costs more to manufacture a 3-channel RTF aileron foamy, but the irony is that we all spend/waste money on some of these planes that we later discover was money that could/should have been spent more wisely. And for quality at a reasonable price it doesn’t get any better then—Made In China. So, the argument that it costs more to manufatcure a 3-channel t/e/a/ than a t/e/r doesn't really make sense when you consider that for decades people learned to fly even more expensive 4-channel glow/gas and they didn't use plastic money.

The SPAD concept and the simplicity of Critterhunters commonsense homebuilt aileron plane(about as inexpensive as it get) is one of those ironies that are simply too practical. It’s a sad commentary on the world of RTF electrics that there isn’t a relatively inexpensive 3-channel RTF aileron foamy trainer available in every LHS in America. It’s also a sad commentary on our own haste makes waste rush for the Glitz&Gusto. Flying model airplanes(made in China) and all the technology that comes with it doesn’t have to cost an arm and a leg. If most of us were to take an inventory of all the money we’ve spent and go back and spend it again we’d be able to buy a plane that we probably now only dream about someday owning.

LlamaFragments

I agree, but a few things:
1. You basically explained the marketing of the airplane hobby industry. See, the manufacturers say "Oh, you should start with rudder and go to aileron" as a BS marketing trick so that you have to buy 2 airplanes. In the case of HobbyZone, they market Aerobird/Supercub as a step below the Swift, so that the new buyers with their starter planes develop a sort of brand loyalty, thinking that it's actually the next step up to get the Swift when the Swift should have been the thing that they marketed to beginners because that's a better choice, but they make planes at a lower level then that to make more money.
2. They're not Critterhunter's plans, they're FoamFlyer's.

Is it me, or is it like this:
HorizonHobby
-Spektrum
-Hobbyzone
-Parkzone
-JR
-Eflite

Tower Hobbies
-Great Planes
-Futaba
-Heli-Max


Is it me or are these all owned by the same company or something?

Swift427

I hope my involvement in this thread is in no way construed as confrontational or negative crittercism. On the contrary I admire Critterhunter's modification tenacity(Stryker Bullet thread) and his realization that possibly the best 3-channel aileron plane for beginnners is this threads FoamFlyer design as recognized by Critterhunter as a very worthwhile building project. In the end the final analysis by the varied participants of this thread that are building this FoamFlyer design will weigh in on its flying merits whether or not this plane is possibly one of thee best, if not the best, candidate for a 3-channel RTF t/e/a foamy electric aileron trainer American(China) Idol.

If it's OK, lets discuss this just a bit more with respect to your two points and I hope Critterhunter will enter in with respect to why he believes a beginner aileron foamy that makes so much sense, is relatively inexpensive to manufacture, and could become more popular than the SuperCub($$$ for the company coffer) isn’t available in the WholeWideWorld as a 3-channel RTF aileron foamy electric. It certainly isn’t like China doesn’t have the smarts or manpower to knock them out by the millions at a reasonable cost. Now, with respect to your two points.

1. I don’t believe it’s any kind of a marketing BS strategy to get consumers to spend more money. I think it’s more of a mere Accounting bottomline mentality that it’s less expensive to manufacture and sell 3-channel RTF t/e/r planes than 3-channel RTF t/e/a planes as a suitable enough beginner plane for newbies to the hobby with limited cash(or available plastic) that know very little about flying. Also, you don’t realize how mistaken you are in saying the Swift is the plane they should have marketed to beginners in the first place. If you ever have the opportunity to fly a Swift and a SuperCub you will understand why the SuperCub is possibly the most widely sold plane for beginners(even without any ailerons), and you will also understand after attempting to fly the Swift why used/rejected Swifts are possibly the most widely sold model airplane on Ebay.

2. Critterhunter’s modification mind is apparent in this thread so let's give him credit where credit is due. It may be a FoamFlyer design, but Critterhunter would have eventually come up with basically the same design without FoamFlyer’s help.

saucerguy

Swift, there was a guy on the old thread that tried to learn to fly RC on the So. he got in a few short flights and ended up making are more docile plane to learn on, in fact, I gave him the gear for it, we have already been down that gambit there. The purpose of this new thread is to try and keep it uncluttered and to the facts rather then going onto tangents, such as the ones you are showing here, just FYI.

Along stumbling along foam flyers design on our own, it's possible, but not likely, not to the original specs. The reason I built it was because it was there and I wanted something quick and easy and there was no real thought put into the decision, it was just a spur of the moment, on the fly type of thing, one of so many planes I've built, I stopped counting, my own personal building style tends to go other directions as well. I'm just glad he came up with a good design that is so versitile.

LlamaFragments

Oh no, I'm not against you, I just think that there are some flaws in your argument. I am a newbie to this stuff so take my responses as speculation.

AND YAY! FOR SURE TOMORROW I WILL HAVE THE REST OF MY STUFF TO FINISH THE PLANE!

Swift427

This is the only thread I know of that is discussing/building this FoamFlyer 3-channel aileron trainer aircraft design.

One reason for all the interest in this building thread is because there doesn't seem to be a similary RTF version on the market. My question to you all is why not? It seems to make so much sense for a wide market appeal to parkflyers. It could be manufactured as inexpensively as any other aileron RTF.

The fact that Critterhunter hasn't weighed in would suggest that it may also be a puzzle to him why some company isn't marketing a 3-channel RTF very similar to this FoamFlyer design. So I thought of all the RC threads one of you guys might know of a similar RTF design already available online for purchase or through a LHS.

saucerguy

Well, I think initially, it's Foam Flyers design, I'm sure some Chinese company will rip it off soon enough, they do all of the other plane designs, including the ones with patents, the geobat comes to mind in that area. The appeal on this plane is it's utter simplicity and ease of fabrication, if you dig into building one, you'll see, it's by far, not a hard plane to make on your own, you don't need much more then some hot glue, a block of sandpaper and a hack saw blade and your airframe shouldn't take more then a couple of hours top's to complete. This is a good plane for first time builders so by all means, dig in and start making one.

Swift427

As far as practical electric SPAD(SFAD) designs I like the looks of this one the best. Thanks again to Critterhunter and everyone for your insight/input in this thread. One final question and I'll let you all get back to your building/modifications.

Is this about as GOOD a design as can be found with respect to a-- parkflyer 3-channel aileron trainer with about as minimal repair time/cost as can be found? I'd think a resounding "YES!", and in time you'll provide some firsthand feedback.

I'll be watching this thread as you all file your flying reports. Thanks again! It looks to be my choice for my first homebuilt project.