A while ago I was reading a story about the ultra stick and person that reviewed it made the statement that on low rates
the ultra stick can be a good trainer.

Do you think this is a true statement or is it just hype.

I used the ultra stick as a trainer and had no major problems. The only thing I would recomend is to re-epoxy the landing gear, the factory is weak and it will pull out after a few hard landings. Also do not use all the toys with a computer radio, it's to much all at once

In my opinion most stick designs could be used as trainers. On low rates and with an instructor present they can be perfect. It also may be a plus to use a stick so if the student does need help the instructor has a more maneuverable plane to get out of the mess, and is more likely to save it. I'm not saying that everyone should go out and get a stick but if you have some r/c experience and/or a sim, it may be worth it. I myself used a GP Big Stik 40 with great success. After a lot of time on a sim I had one flight with an instructor and (against his recommendation) went and flew solo anyway.

BTW- the Stik is still in one piece.

All of the Sticks are descended from the original Ugly Stick. It was one of the best trainers of all time.

Flat bottomed airfoiled trainers only became popular again because they were easy for the ARF makers to make. They are probably the worst designs to learn how to fly on.

Thirty years ago, everyone had made the jump to symmetrical or semi-symmetrical airfoiled trainers. It is a shame to see things de-evolve in such a manner.

US 40 on low rates ==> TRAINER???

I would consider it an advanced trainer (an excellant 2nd airplane) -- not the recommended airplane to fly when it is the 1st time you've handle the sticks.

A symetrical wing airplane flys in the direction you point it in, depending upon the accuracy of your trims and the dihedral of the wing. If you point it down and take your hands off the sticks it will continue straight down to a crash -- guaranteed.

The inherent stability of a flat-bottom wing and significant dihedral makes for a begginers airplane -- an airplane that tends to stay in level flight with little to no control from the flyer. This design also lends itself to stable recoveries from other than level flight maneuvers. There is a good chance that if you point this airplane down it will level off without TX control. This makes it easier for the student to recover from bad inputs.

FWIW: I started (based on advice) with a high wing trainer and I didn't like how it flew then and I still dislike them. They are "mushy". Durin my first flights it was hard for me to judge its response to my inputs because of the excess of dihedral and low aileron travel. Not good prep. IMO for someone wanting to move on to low wing or sport plane anytime soon.

If I had to do it over again I would first invest in a computer simulator to teach control familiarity and then a stick or docile low wing for buddy-cord and solo.

To each his own, but I still think high wing trainers suck so it just depends on the person (and teacher). The only advantage to a high wing I can think of is that they are nearly (I repeat: nearly) impossible to roll without time to correct.

I used a GP Big Stik 60 set-up with tricycle gear as my trainer 14 years ago. Keep the rates low and it was a dream to fly. Also Stiks can handle the wind a lot better in the air and on the ground than a flat bottom "trainer". As the pilots abilities grow the Stik can grow with the pilot. I always try to have a Stik in my collection, I still love to fly them.

Our club uses a Hobbistar 60 as our club trainer most of the time. The Hobbistar 60 is very similiar to a Stik (just a little prettier) with semi-symetric wing and small dihedral. It works out great.

I've had great experiences using my 4-control surface wing'd US60 as an 'in conjunction with' trainer. If your club's lucky enough to have a club trainer that's one of the dedicated docile trainer designs, a US might not be bad for the student to get in to as soon as they transition.... maybe even before they solo.

It all depends on the student. Personally I drop flaps on mine, go to 1/4 throttle and just do lazy maneuvers around the sky with my Ultra. My trainer drops like a rock at that throttle (then the pesky thing hangs in ground effect, like all trainers I've seen). I can keep it in the air with up-elevator all I want, but I just like the stick's slow speed better. Pop full throttle, click the flaps up and roll over and you're max-velocity inverted flying in about 2 seconds (which may be -too- fast for someone still learning).

One thing - the radio - might make all the difference. My US could be built straight 4-channel with full-wing ailerons. Simply snap in a reversing Y-harness and you're all set (I have one on my flaps, and LOVE the thing). Of course, you can also set an Ultra for full-house seven-channel computer-mixed control. That level of radio-learning-curve is probably too much for many people just getting into R/C. I had the distinct adavantage of having set up and operated multiple channel R/C boats before, so it was no big deal to me. Some, however are quite new and still confuse the servo wire with the battery wire (honest mistake). I think one should consult whomever will be their instructor on this matter.

Hi:

I'm new to the forum and brand new to RC planes. I bought an Ultra Stick 60 based on some experienced advise from a club member and doing my own research. So far I've made 8 flights with the aid of my instructor and a buddy box. I actually took off and landed the plane on my seventh flight and hope to be able to solo this weekend. It's been great for me. Although I've built the plane with the quad flap options, we're not using the inboard flaps, any computer mixing and have the ailerons hooked up on a Y. It's been very predictable and fun. It'll do some pretty nice aileron rolls even with this set up. I must admit, I can't wait to learn how to really fly this plane to it's full capability.

I chose the Ultra Stick 60 over a more traditional trainer based on my confidence of good hand/eye coordination, excellent reviews of flight characteristics and the potential for more advanced capabilities into which I hope to grow. I'd say the Ultra Stick makes a great trainer with instructor assistance.

You are on your way toward being a pilot, Skyman, instead of someone that is interfering with the flight of a free flight model that some call an R/C Trainer. You have learned to fly, not interrupt the flight path of a model with a mind of its own. The idea of a trainer is to teach THE STUDENT PILOT how to fly, not do it for him with a robot.

I have taught so many people to fly in the last thirty plus years that I have lost count. I have never had a student pilot quit because he/she didn't know how to fly when I wrote them off to solo. All but a few were using symmetrical or semi-symmetrical airfoil equipped models. You can't argue with success.

If a new student pilot has problems with vision, hand-eye coordination, concentration, or other infirmaties, to the point that you actually need a flat bottomed airfoil equipped trainer to learn to fly on, they are in the wrong hobby. Take up eating at Cracker Barrel or CB as a hobby. You'll enjoy that far more than R/C flying.

I'm not being mean. I'm being realistic. I'll never be asked to sing opera. I wasn't born with the equipment and I know it. Not everyone is born to fly R/C. It's a fact of life.

That's what I'm talking about!

Ed is the first "long-timer" I've heard say that. If he'd been around when I was starting out I could have saved some money (and time).

You know... when I learned to ride snowmobiles - I had considered something tame. Easy to handle.

I ended up with a modified 600CC Yamaha Mountain Max with custom clutch and dual tuned pipes. About a 115hp sled (2X my first car). I learned to ride, and I learned well. I figured out that I could ride safely, but still have a blast. The sled was responsive, climbed like an angel with a Saturn V rocket straped to it, and was quite a blast to own.

Pure enjoyment. If I'd crashed I'd have risked my very life. I did wreck once and fractured 3 ribs, popped 3 disks in my back, dislocated my shoulder and THEN I had to ride 20 hard miles home. $2000 repairs to sled.

And here I was being... well 'conservative' is the best word I can come up with - with my R/C modeling and flying. I don't advocate newbies getting something like a Northstar (100mph + Balsa USA kit) but I realize now the most I'd have done is wreck $300 or so in gear and have to start over. Sure... if I was careless I could cause an accident - but we're talking about someone who follows the rules here. Not much chance of me being KILLED (though I understand that recently happend - man flew into the sun from what I heard).

I believe my 'conservative' approach was based on safe thinking. I also believe it was a mistake. I see no reason I couldn't have risked a US60 in training. I figure the mistakes I made in flying would have been MUCH easier to fix with an ultra stick (recover from inverted, or inverted nose-down). I recovered inverted nose-down with my trainer. Almost disaster. She JUST BARELY pulled out. The Ultra Stick would have simply climbed from inverted, pulling neg G until flying straight up and asking me "Now What?" Either way the till would have been $300 or so for a total-loss crash.

Overall the US60 can be built for an additional $30 (difference in kit price here) + $13 (one more std servo for 4 channel ops) + $30 (65 v 46 engine here). Did I mention it's more fun to fly, or that I have instructors lined up to 'help me fly' provided they can get their hands on it. It's also (sorry Great Planes) better built and better covered. VERY attractive plane.

Oh... the US40 would probably fly off your bench at the EXACT SAME PRICE as a PT-40..... same notes on the build and cover.

I like starting higher on the learning curve. I went riding dirt bikes with a friend last fall (my first time) and he let me loose on a Honda CR 250. Scared the $**t out of me the first time I cracked the throttle in 2nd! After riding that all day and burning $40 of 105 gas, I hopped on his CR 125 and it felt like I had to wait 5 minutes for the thing to get to the powerband.

My son and I both started on a Hobbico Superstar 40 with an OS 40 engine and the four channel radio that came with the ARF kit. We also used a flight sim. which I think is more important than choosing the stick or a trainer. I can't recommend getting a flight sim. enough. Stick time, stick time, stick Regardless of the weather, availability of an instructor, time of day or wind conditions. You can always use the flight sim.

If you go with a stick then you are most likely going to want to go with a bigger engine than an OS 40 or something similar. This has the potential for problems in the beginning. My son and I both thought the trainer, with the OS 40, had plenty of power when we first started. Yes, it wasn't long until we wanted something faster with more power. Like anything else, speed before you are really ready can be the one thing that puts you in the ground, losing the money you thought you were saving by going with a more advanced plane with more power. We took good care of our trainers, sold them both without crashing and then went to the Hanger 9 Ultrastick 40 with a programmable radio. We also used an OS 46 FX for power. Wow! We loved this plane and the added power which resulted in more speed.

One final thought. If you can fly a trainer well by doing all the basics, do acrobatic maneuvers and fly level and straight inverted then you are ready for a stick. IMHO, the stick is a great second airplane after you have the basics down. After seeing how my son and I did going down this path, without losing an airplane, I would have to encourage a high wing, 40 size trainer with nose wheel and the OS 40 for power. Very reliable airplane, great to learn on and most important, fun to fly for (beginner skill level).

You have to make your own decision. Just thought I would respond having just gone through what you are going through. Good luck.

Did I mention that none of my student pilots lost a trainer until "he" lied to me and said that he had charged the batteries when he hadn't? Nope, I didn't think so.

Look at RCM's plans service. Look at the RCM Trainer and the RCM Trainer Jr. They are every bit as hot as the Ultra Stick (pick a size). Why? Because they are essentially the same thing. A box fuselage with a fully symmetrical airfoil and flat horizontal stab. They can be made to fly every bit as gentle as a flat bottomed airfoiled trainer, but they will still retain their ability to fly in much higher winds AND land with the nose high without stalling - something a flat bottomed winged trainer will never do.

I'll say it again - the ARF movement is what brought the flat bottom winged trainer back into popularity - not proven training practice.

When the ARFs started coming out of Asia, it was much cheaper and quicker to build those wings on a flat table. The cost savings was passed along to the importer who sells them to you. Needless to say, the importer cares about their profits, not whether you learn to fly better or not.

Y'all have been sold a bill of goods. R/C progressed past flat bottom winged trainers in the very early seventies. Today's ARFs are a step backwards. Anyone from my era knows that what I am saying is true.

I dunno. I still feel like people should get and fly what they like.

Problem is, until you've been in the air with a more responsive and better-flying airplane it's hard to know WHAT you actually DO LIKE.

We're having to do the US-60 old-school trainer style (handing over the x-mitter) because the guy I flew with last only has JR gear (oops). Was a BLAST. You can actually SEE the airplane... at distances my trainer becomes a small X in the sky.

To answer the question about your US40 being a trainer... SURE. make sure you have someone buddy-box you at the start...

I'm not saying that people are wrong by using a flat bottom wing trainer. I am saying that they are wasting their money and will outgrow it within twenty five to thirty flights at the most.

Most "average" people will progress past the flat bottom wing trainer very quickly, IF they can fly because the wind cooperated and didn't keep them grounded.

Most old timers remember the Goldberg "Falcon 56". The Falcon 56 and the RCM Trainer Jr. were the defacto standard trainers for many years. We taught people how to fly them long before the buddy box became popular. Heck, we even used wide band AM rigs back then, without a single problem. Both planes did NOT use a flat bottomed airfoil.

Forcing a newbie to learn how to fly a box kite with a flat bottomed airfoil is tantamount to forcing the new power boater to learn how to sail a sail boat first. It is a waste of time. Sure, they would be better boaters, but it would be gross over kill for the average power boater. Same thing.

Grrrr..

I fly kites. LOL. (competition parafoils).

Anyhow. Total agreement. My trainer's still fun to fly, but only to the extent that I'm flying and not sitting @ home.

Another angle to the plug for flat-bottom wing trainers.

Tower Hobbies has a policy (think its still in effect) that if you buy one of their trainers they will replace it if you crash within 60 days of the purchase. I can attest to this because they replaced my 60-size trainer when I tip-stalled it one day taking off before it was ready to fly. Since I was pretty much done with trainers at the time I ended up selling that extra kit -- almost got all of my original investment back.

Stiks are great airplanes - Fast sport planes at full throttle, almost like a trainer at half throttle.

I started on a thunder tiger .40 - a week later I bought a used stik - I realized then that I could have started on it.

Whichever you start with - if you are on the buddy box - it will be fine. If you start with a stik you will "stick" with it longer than you would a trainer.

Once you solo, you will NEED every airplane that is faster than the one you have. The sad thing is that never ends. I am flying ducted fans now and will soon be getting into turbines. The addiction never ends - and neither does the cost!!

Keep your nose up!

Smitty

When I saw this question my first thought was to say "no way a stick should be a trainer". Everyone knows they're too quick, not enough time for the beginner to think, easily inverted, will go from altitude into the ground much faster than a flat bottomed plane with dihedral. In fact, I was shocked to see so many people that felt a stick would be a good trainer!

However, after reading this thread I can see some validity to the arguments for using a stick as a trainer and I'm beginning to warm up to the idea a bit. My gut feeling however is the student on a stick would have to stay dependent on the instructor for a longer time and a buddy box would be much more important with a stick than with a flat bottomed traditional trainer (floater).

I'm currently in the process of teaching my two boys (11 and 9 yrs) to fly. I have them flying a flat bottom/dihedral trainer (and occasionally a Zagi). This thread has inspired me to give them a shot on my US40 this weekend (after I dial down the throws a bit ). I'm sure they'll get a real charge out of this! And come to think of it, I'll enjoy it more than the trainer too .

We'll see how it goes

Keith