ORIGINAL: combatpigg
Another example of a guy trying to learn with too much plane. The margin for error with 5 pounds plus out there is so much less than if he was trying to fly the same amount of plane that weighs 3 pounds or less. So much less inertia if you do manage to crash, also. These so called ARF "trainers" are really more like good secondary trainers, and these planes will retard your progress compared with someone who learns to fly with a lightly built model. The landfills are full of ARF .40 sized 4 channel trainers, I've witnessed too many poor guys trying to reach a level of competency after crashing a couple of these pigs, and coming back out with even a heavier, worse flying plane than the one they just crashed.
I see a troll in progress, but I cannot resist.
I have just one question, well maybe two or three...
What then do you recommend he train on?
And if ARF trainers are not the way too go then why are so many sold and successfully flown and are still flying? If you take a lightly built trainer and get a student that is just having a hard time landing, he will spend most of his time repairing. It's a compromise as is everything else in flying.
Learning to fly is not all about the plane. Yes, the plane is at best 50% of the learning curve and there are planes that are not good first planes, but the way the student is instructed is just as important and also in the end it's all about skill level. I along with most everyone here have seen people claim a radio hit/glitch only to ask certain questions and find out it was completely something else as this exact thread has shown.
If a student is taught how to "fly the wing" using a lower powered engine, then that student will understand aerodynamics much better and in the end be a safer pilot. Having "too much engine" is a good thing for getting out of trouble and a few other things, but it does promote a habit that has it's good and bad points. It gives you a somewhat false sense of security in that you know you have the extra power when needed but you then start to "rely" on that knowledge and in one case with the original creator of this thread, his extra "power" got him into trouble which was a contributing factor in his first crash right after solo as he went full power on his Super Tigre, pulled it off the ground and it went vertical and tip stalled.
Now lets take a look at 3D flying, I like it, I do it, as it teaches the art of fine aircraft control and I need that for me to be more competitive in IMAC. A hover can be the most boring thing in the world to watch, but take a look at the control surfaces, especially the elevators and the rudder, and listen to the engine. The pilot is working very hard to maintain a certain flight attitude. That is a great example of control. Using everything you have all at the same time. Yes, the proper plane setup helps allot but now do it in a pretty stiff wind. So much for proper plane setup.
The other thing is precision aerobatics. In IMAC up to unlimited, you are flying precision, most of the time on low rates. Even though you have excess power, you are not using it. Unlimited and Freestyle are totally different matters and get into the realm of 3D. In competition, you are flying a set of maneuvers that are judged not on the look of the plane but it's track through the air. In depth knowledge of the plane is an absolute must as well as aerodynamics. Take a look at videos of IMAC schedules and you may very well see the plane crabbing into the wind, BUT, it's track is straight across the sky. Now how do you suppose he/she is doing that.
All I am trying to say is lower powered planes can be fun and is another way to teach proper flying techniques. I have all my students fly both upright and inverted at a speed just above stall and then we move into landings. I feel as an instructor, this is a great way to teach slow speed handling and really sets them up for the first landing. They usually want to kill me afterwords
, but it's easy to see the skills that it teaches.