Best trainer with aerobatic capabilities???
#1
Does anyone have ideas for a trainer that actually has aerobatic capabilities? Nothing too wild, but a decent airfoil, dual or slightly larger ailerons, etc.... less dihedral, or?
Thanks for any input!
Ernie
Thanks for any input!
Ernie
#3
Hi Jim,
By golly you are reading my mind....:-) I already started another thread to see if anyone had actually seen or flown this plane.
I did own an Avistar 40 once that had a decent airfoil. I just can't see going back to that again though. They do make a good trainer.....
Thanks a bunch! Oh..... the M. Aerobat looks like it might handle a slightly larger engine too.
Ernie
By golly you are reading my mind....:-) I already started another thread to see if anyone had actually seen or flown this plane.
I did own an Avistar 40 once that had a decent airfoil. I just can't see going back to that again though. They do make a good trainer.....
Thanks a bunch! Oh..... the M. Aerobat looks like it might handle a slightly larger engine too.
Ernie
#5
Senior Member
My Feedback: (2)
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: LA,TX,MS,AL
My Avistar (hobbico) will do the usual trainer stuff pretty well - loops/rolls/cuban 8's - will fly inverted pretty well without totally pushing the stick all the way forward. Will snap roll if you really try hard or find it by accident....
I gap sealed my ailerons and on max deflection it rolls pretty nice for a trainer type plane - probably till the wing splits down the middle that is.
Guy at the club has one he put together totally stock other than he elminated a lot of the dihedral and it seems to make a pretty nice fun fly type plane so far...
I gap sealed my ailerons and on max deflection it rolls pretty nice for a trainer type plane - probably till the wing splits down the middle that is.
Guy at the club has one he put together totally stock other than he elminated a lot of the dihedral and it seems to make a pretty nice fun fly type plane so far...
#6

My Feedback: (1)
Ernie,
A lot of what a person needs in a trianer is determined by his age and physical abilities. If you were in your teens, you could probably learn in a few flights on anything. On the other hand, I have taught people in their 70s that took over a year to get past the trainer. Age, eyesight, reflexes and such have a lot to do with your learning ability of a physical process. It's all hand-eye coordination.
If you can say that you are reasonably good at video games, for example, of a sport like tennis, you'll probably be able to start with a fairly aerobatic plane.
At for planes to learn on that are aerobatic, any of the Sticks would be my choice. With dihedral, they are fairly trainer-like. With a flat wing, they are really aerobatic, except for some roll coupling. With anhedral, they fly like a low wing plane.
A lot of what a person needs in a trianer is determined by his age and physical abilities. If you were in your teens, you could probably learn in a few flights on anything. On the other hand, I have taught people in their 70s that took over a year to get past the trainer. Age, eyesight, reflexes and such have a lot to do with your learning ability of a physical process. It's all hand-eye coordination.
If you can say that you are reasonably good at video games, for example, of a sport like tennis, you'll probably be able to start with a fairly aerobatic plane.
At for planes to learn on that are aerobatic, any of the Sticks would be my choice. With dihedral, they are fairly trainer-like. With a flat wing, they are really aerobatic, except for some roll coupling. With anhedral, they fly like a low wing plane.
#7
Thanks a bunch Ed! Actually I have flown quite a bit and have just assembled an Ultra Stick with a Saito 72. I do miss having a trainer type plane in the stable though and the Aerobat looks like it might fit in nicely. I also had an old Super Stick until it got stolen from my truck canopy last week.
Ernie
Ernie



