I am ready to move up and on to a second plane. Ihave played with my mini telemaster, crashed and rebuilt it a few times and added ailerons to it.
I am not into 3D stuff, at least not yet, and like slower flying planes at this point. At least that's what I favor playing with Real Flight sim.
I am looking the Space Walker and the PT-19. On the sim assuming it's accurate the Space Walker is easier to handle than the PT-19.
They appear to be about the same overall design to me.
Is one just a copy more or less of the other?
Would either make a better plane than the other for a second step from my trainer?

I'm sure you will get all sorts of ideas and opinions from folks that are genuine PT-19 and Space Walker enthusiasts.

I would prefer something somewhat large with a good wing loading. In my opinion, either a Four Star 60 or a Tiger 60 are both ideal for this. They are both easy to fly in a sense that they behave somewhat like a trainer, yet have the agility to behave like a beginner aerobatics aircraft. In fact, when I was contemplating getting into Pattern, my instructor suggested a Tiger 60 because it was capable enough to do all of the entry (Sportsman) level aerobatics - rolls, loops, cuban 8, immelman, and so on - maneuvers, understand that these are not 3D maneuvers, but basic aerobatic maneuvers. They also very forgiving to mistakes, and will come in slowly enough see what's going on, yet a bit faster than a trainer.

I am not knocking nither the PT-19 nor the Space Walker because I've flown both. But for a good, reliable, and capable second plane that is also tolerable (meaning not something that will drive you crazy with instant stalls and so on), they are both worth considering.

My Tiger 60 had a Super Tigre 75 engine and would do just about anything I asked of it. I am not (never was nor will be) interested in 3D so this was a perfect choice for me.

CGr.

I've a Hanger 9 120 size PT-19 and it is a great flier. However, it will tip stall if getting it too slow and especially into a wind, throttle management when landing is critical as it requires a fair amount of throttle to keep it coming and keep the glide path shallow. With no head wind, it about lands itself. I'd say it is not a real good choice for a second plane based mostly on that one issue of being able to end its life easily by an inadvertent lack of attention to air speed.

I've flown the Spacewalker on the simulator and it is a very gentle flier and a floater. With no headwind, it will also have its landing challenges requiring the final to be low and slow.

Both these planes are lightly loaded and fly very well... but both have issues regarding landing and the issue is strangely opposite. With the PT-19 it will be challenging with a strong head wind down the runway and with the Spacewalker it will be challenging with no headwind.

Personally, I'm a big advocate of a stick for a second plane. Most of them stall straight on... if you get too slow they stall straight on, most often yielding enough time to give a little throttle to regain lift. And... they are simple with no cowl, canopy, struts or wheel pants so they provide the pilot with maximum flight training with as little hassle as possible. Heck... just being able to set the plane on the bench on its gear and bolt the wing on the top is a huge plus during the time when focus should be on flying, not airplane esthetics.

So... part of my thinking is... avoid planes with cowls, canopies, wheel pants, etc for the second plane. Tail draggers are in this sense better than nose gear as they are simpler. And.... having no dihedral they keep the pilot in the air on windy and cross wind days. And... most times there is a stick the size needed to pull the engine and radio gear from the trainer and move it to the stick... and engine that the beginner is all ready comfortable with.

KISS is a worthy theme for airplane number two... lots of flight time should be the game plan with a platform that is able to teach yet not prone to make you pay for an inadvertent air speed mistake on landing.

Last... don't over power the stick. I'd suggest using the lower range of engine recommendations as keeping sticks light makes them fly better.

But... I've been unfair to you... you asked which of two airplanes would be the better for a second plane.... IMO, the Spacewalker.

Thanks for the replies. I am looking at the Four Star and Tiger 60. I wish that they were on my sim. I will have to do more research on them and reading.
AA5BY~I assume by a stick you mean something like a Big Stick or an Ultra Stick? I have looked at those before and they have been recommended to me also.

TNX de W7WV by the way

I've flown the Seagull 40 sized Spacewalker, it flies nice but nothing special. It's wing loading might be slightly high for a second airplane.

An Ugly Stik is a very good 2nd airplane, people been building them for about 45 years now, so that should tell you all you need to know. Either 40 or 60 sized fly great, and are easy to maintain. Just depends on how much fuel you want to burn.

The Pulse series fly extremely well, but won't take as much abuse as the Stiks.

To judge the "next airplane", look at the wing loading and look at the wing design. You really want to stay with a constant chord wing, and a relatively light wing loading. The rest doesn't matter too much.

Now if you started with the typical 40 size trainer, it had a wing loading of 16 to 18 oz per sq. ft. (unless it was a pig). I would suggest that for a more advanced "2nd airplane", that you limit the wing loading for another 40-45 sized engine to the 18 to 22 oz range.

I find the walker a bit easier to fly then the PT but all of that type of plane are about the same. 4*, Pulse SW and PT. I don't give the wing loading on these types a lot of though, they are all floaters so just buy the one that you like the looks of the most. I like the Pulse series, easy to fly and even easier to see. I use the 4* 60 to teach building. I do like the 60 size of planes, easier to see and a bit smoother to fly. None of these types should pose a problem for you if your good with a trainer.

OK thanks for the replies.
It is was not Xmas right now money wise I would pick up on a very nice looking Fly Baby that's about 100 miles away.
It's just another one that I like~~

The Non-sim Spacewalker has a tendancy to yaw at run-up which can really "catch" newbies.... the sim doesn't model this aspect of that model.

The PT-19 is a trainer war plane. By this I mean it flies fairly easily, but does have all the typical low wing warplane vices (tip stall, needs a good landing technique, appreciates a little speed and needs your eye on it all the time). It is not as hard as most warplanes, but no beginner plane.

The Spacewalker is fine and easier to fly. The Tiger 60 (with flaps) is a fair beginner plane, but is slippery and goes quite fast. The Pulse 60 is very versatile, and a slow flier, and comes highly recommended.

If this is your second plane, and first low wing, I would go for the Tiger or a stick becasue of their cheapness and to get a bit of expereince before a more expensive name brand 

Krashkart

One of the main issues that I have found to be practical is visibility. Gray Beard suggested that in his post. Once a student pilot learns to fly the plane and land it successfully, the next step is learning to fly it well. Seeing it clearly really helps in this regard.

I chose the Tiger 60 mainly because it was bigger than my trainer and I could clearly see what it was doing, especially on landing. When it was coming in, and at about a few feet above the ground, "tapping" the elevator to produce a flare maneuver was clearly visible to the point where I could actually see the elevator move.

Once I started seeing this, I began to realize how delicate the "tap" was and how much or how little stick movement was necessary to give a nice and smooth landing. And of course, this translates to better in-air handling because you learn what stick movements will do what and how much or how little is necessary to do something.. like a nice roll maneuver or a smooth turn. The simple stuff.

So, if you decide on any airframe type, from the Tiger, Four Star, Stick, whatever, (and I would listen to what is said above about the tendencies of some of these "warbird" type airplanes, especially when considering a second plane) I would focus on becoming a better pilot and learning how to make the plane do what you want it to do rather than have to deal with what the plane wants to do.

Best of luck.

CGr.

Agree with the Comments on the PT 19." He said as he is putting his PT 19 back together" I love my PT 19 though. I flew it alot before I finally crashed in a cross wind landing a couple of weeks ago. I also let her get to slow, and didn't have enough speed to correct when the cross wind gust hit. But what a fun plane to fly! I just like the scale looks. Also another issue with the PT 19 (at least on my GP PT 19) is the stock main landing gear is a tad bit behind the leading edge of the wing. This causes nose overs after landing. I could land mine prefectly and while bringing it back into the pits, a bump or a tail wind would flip it up on it's nose, no harm other than having to walk out onto the runway to get it. After my rebuild I will have robart struts for the main gear that will push the wheels out in front of the wing. I have read that most PT 19 owners do this to eliminate the "nose overs". The full scale version actually had he same issues with the landing gear and nose overs. I have mine set up with a 26 cc gas engine and it just flies wonderful. Loops, knife edges are super sweet.

Yes, I love my PT 19 too. It's a beautiful looking plane. I have a Seagull 120 size with an ASP 120 size 4 -stroke. I have just finished repairing mine after sending it down the strip in a cartwheel (I let it take off too soon, with not enough airspeed and the engine coughed at the critical time when I was trying to power out of the resultant wing drop). I was very lucky, the damage was only cosmetic.

The undercarraige wire to which the oleos screw is prone to bending back. Once the wheel axle is bent back past the leading edge of the wing, nose tips start to become a problem. I've settled by bending the undercarraige wire so the axles are about one inch in front of the wing's leading edge. It certainly doesn't look very scale on the ground, but it stops nose-overs and is not noticeable in the air. It also helps prevent the undercarraige wire from bending back because the wheels hit the ground more square to the oleos and they absorb the impact better. It does place more of a strain on the weheels though, and I've had to replace the stock wheels with more robust Dubro equivalents.

RealFlight Fourstar http://www.knifeedge.com/forums/down...le&id=8741
the tiger is in expansion pack 3 i think