View Poll Results: Second Plane
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 31. You may not vote on this poll
Best Second Plane
12-20-2016 | 09:53 PM
#51
My Feedback: (10)
Highplanes brings up a good point- where do you want to go... I would suggest at the stage you are at that you should look to something that will have some longevity in your hangar and will take some abuse of shooting touch and goes, working the pattern a lot.. I go to a fair amount of events and 99% of the time when the wind is above 20mph my buddy and the only two flying.. we usually always have either funcubs, a rascal 110s, or flying kings..that we fly when the nice stuff is put away. .-- usually its in formation and we will have a blast playing in the wind together playing follow the leader and shooting touch and go's.. it makes you better to have a flying buddy to push you and you need a good predictable flying plane to push the limits with.. The key thing is get out there and burn some fuel.. keep pushing yourself.. fly low, work the pattern, do touch and goes both directions.. Some of the new guys in my club improved the most when they went from barely flying trainers to flying combat with slow sticks... - they got in a lot of flight time.. and always were flying too and beyond their limits and they had very little attachment to their planes.... get a plane that will take a bit of abuse, keep the trainer a spare so a minor mishap doesn't stop your day and go fly.. If you can drum up a buddy to fly with and push each others limits even better!!
12-20-2016 | 11:16 PM
#52
My Feedback: (1)
Ok, knowing your goal helps somewhat. A lot of scale designs have a rather high wing loading because of amount of scale details. I saw RC scale flown at the AMA Nationals (usually just called the Nats) back in 1968 at Olathe Ks when I was barely 14, where Dave Platt had the most unbelievable Dauntless SBD WWII Navy dive bomber. Dave was from England and has lived in the USA for many years now.
Anyway back then almost all airplane's were built from kits, plans, or from scratch which meant the builder designed the model and then built it from a stack of wood. Because of the time it took to just build from a kit, plus the low quality of the radio equipment back then, not many of the scale fliers were very good at the flying part. That year was very windy, but not unusual in Kansas. In spite of that nearly all of the scale fliers made attempts. There were something like 7 twins entered, and 3 or 4 went home in trash bags after losing an engine in the air. Of course all were glow powered, so I suspect now that the pilots did not have them properly broke in or they were needled too lean since you were limited to a .60 engine or two engines that added up to a .60 size. So with the airplane's very heavy when compared to normal sport models, losing power was usually a crash.
Your Tower Trainer has a wing loading of about 17 oz. per square foot. That allows a multitude of errors not to cause a crash. To find out what the Tower Cherokee would fly like at 28 oz/ft^2, you would have to add about 3 1/2 lbs. of weight to your trainer. While that sounds easy to do it also means you would have to fly it a lot more gently and precisely. Pull too hard on the elevator in a turn could stall the wing in turns that it flew through with ease when lighter. Also the wing might not be strong enough and a higher speed pull up with the elevator just cause the wing to fail completely. Should you try adding weight, go easy with about a half pound at a time.
While on the subject of your trainer, you might also experiment with the balance, since most trainers are setup fairly nose heavy. You can do this by moving the battery pack back or adding weight to the tail. Once again, this is something you do in small amounts and then test fly. As a trainer, setup nose heavy, the airplane becomes very speed sensitive, which is a desired effect in a trainer but less so once you get better at flying. By moving the CG (center of gravity) back, the elevator becomes more sensitive, and the rudder response improves. So you might need to cut down the throw or just get used to the feel. Doing this to a trainer makes the airplane more reliant on the pilot for recovery and usually needs less down thrust. It will also allow slower landings and the ability to spin or snap roll. Knowing how these happen and how to either avoid them or do them and recover on command is a good thing.
BTW, I was flying models pretty much full time from the age of 10 on. But didn't get my first RC in the air until I was 16, because back then a basic 4 channel radio was about the cost of a used car.
Anyway back then almost all airplane's were built from kits, plans, or from scratch which meant the builder designed the model and then built it from a stack of wood. Because of the time it took to just build from a kit, plus the low quality of the radio equipment back then, not many of the scale fliers were very good at the flying part. That year was very windy, but not unusual in Kansas. In spite of that nearly all of the scale fliers made attempts. There were something like 7 twins entered, and 3 or 4 went home in trash bags after losing an engine in the air. Of course all were glow powered, so I suspect now that the pilots did not have them properly broke in or they were needled too lean since you were limited to a .60 engine or two engines that added up to a .60 size. So with the airplane's very heavy when compared to normal sport models, losing power was usually a crash.
Your Tower Trainer has a wing loading of about 17 oz. per square foot. That allows a multitude of errors not to cause a crash. To find out what the Tower Cherokee would fly like at 28 oz/ft^2, you would have to add about 3 1/2 lbs. of weight to your trainer. While that sounds easy to do it also means you would have to fly it a lot more gently and precisely. Pull too hard on the elevator in a turn could stall the wing in turns that it flew through with ease when lighter. Also the wing might not be strong enough and a higher speed pull up with the elevator just cause the wing to fail completely. Should you try adding weight, go easy with about a half pound at a time.
While on the subject of your trainer, you might also experiment with the balance, since most trainers are setup fairly nose heavy. You can do this by moving the battery pack back or adding weight to the tail. Once again, this is something you do in small amounts and then test fly. As a trainer, setup nose heavy, the airplane becomes very speed sensitive, which is a desired effect in a trainer but less so once you get better at flying. By moving the CG (center of gravity) back, the elevator becomes more sensitive, and the rudder response improves. So you might need to cut down the throw or just get used to the feel. Doing this to a trainer makes the airplane more reliant on the pilot for recovery and usually needs less down thrust. It will also allow slower landings and the ability to spin or snap roll. Knowing how these happen and how to either avoid them or do them and recover on command is a good thing.
BTW, I was flying models pretty much full time from the age of 10 on. But didn't get my first RC in the air until I was 16, because back then a basic 4 channel radio was about the cost of a used car.
12-21-2016 | 10:59 AM
#53
A guy who used to fly at our club outgrew his basic trainer, so he modified it to a taildragger. He also cut the wing at the center and eliminated the dihedral. He was able to do some crazy flying with it. Having a more powerful engine also helps.
12-21-2016 | 04:06 PM
#54
My Feedback: (1)
That is one of the reasons I like the Sig LT-40 so much for a basic trainer. People can't believe how well it flys when I use one to do outside loops, snap rolls, spins, and fly around inverted. The dihedral is fine on most trainers with the possible exception of the PT series which had too much. They would fly better if you just took the radio out and glued the control surfaces solid. They did change it finally, but the designer (a guy I knew) blew it badly.
However it is an often made mistake to think that you want to remove the dihedral from all designs. A little thing called adverse roll happens with low wing models and no dihedral or too little. In other words, application of the rudder one direction make the airplane roll the other direction. It's a combination of wing placement fuselage surface area, and dihedral that determines what happens.
In full size airplanes designers want proverse roll which means left rudder make the airplane roll left. The solo exception would be unlimited acrobatic aircraft where the goal is no coupling. Of course those guys usually wear a parachute. But for general aviation, the FAA kind and of wants a redundant control system for direction and pitch. Over the years I have had quite a number of servo failures and even a structural failure and control system failure after a mid-air where I was able to save the airplane because of knowing a few tricks and how things work. But then other times all you can do is watch!
However it is an often made mistake to think that you want to remove the dihedral from all designs. A little thing called adverse roll happens with low wing models and no dihedral or too little. In other words, application of the rudder one direction make the airplane roll the other direction. It's a combination of wing placement fuselage surface area, and dihedral that determines what happens.
In full size airplanes designers want proverse roll which means left rudder make the airplane roll left. The solo exception would be unlimited acrobatic aircraft where the goal is no coupling. Of course those guys usually wear a parachute. But for general aviation, the FAA kind and of wants a redundant control system for direction and pitch. Over the years I have had quite a number of servo failures and even a structural failure and control system failure after a mid-air where I was able to save the airplane because of knowing a few tricks and how things work. But then other times all you can do is watch!
12-21-2016 | 07:26 PM
#57
My Feedback: (1)
The Nexstar trainer does not use any rubber bands for wing attachment. It has some sort of pivoting rubber mount in the front and a single 1/4-20 nylon bolt in the rear. I have never had or flown one so I don't know why it failed for skyflyer but this one wasn't used rubber bands.
12-21-2016 | 07:53 PM
#58
My Feedback: (1)
Skyflyer: So, did you decide on a plane yet? Three days ago I tried to price tease you with Tower's $149.99 sale price on the 81" Cub. (plus the additional $10-$15 discount with a coupon code). I guess the chance to get this size Cub for $134.99 didn't impress you but it kept eating at my mind to the point that I couldn't pass up on yet another Cub at a bargain price. As it turns out using coupon code #51077 you get $20 off an order of $149 or more. So if you buy the Cub and nothing else with the order, you get the Cub for $129.99 ! I couldn't stand it........I have tried to stop buying any more planes but I weakened. I went whole hog and ordered the Cub plus another plane and enough needed supplies to bring my order up to $399. That got me a $70 coupon code discount. Mentally splitting the $70 discount between the two planes, I got the Cub for $114.99 and the other plane for $124.99. Shipping was free and I needed the other supplies (servos, extensions, Screws etc.) anyway. Hope you can decide on one and pick up a bargain too. My wife doesn't believe it but "you can never have too many Cubs" ! 
12-21-2016 | 08:20 PM
#59
I've been holding back. The significant other asked me what I want for x-mas and I replied, "get me a model airplane, anything. I'll let you decide". There's a fairly large rectangular box in the living room. So it's going to be interesting. I have no idea what it could be. A friend of mine has a full scale Cub. She knows heirs to the original Piper. I've had a ride in a 1942 Boeing Stearman. I'd love a Stik. But it doesn't matter. I've been wanting a model airplane for x-mas for years. So I'm just going to love whatever it is.
12-21-2016 | 08:23 PM
#60
My Feedback: (1)
It's been a couple of years, so it may have been a clone, but I think it was sold by Tower. For some reason people really hate rubber bands. I'm fine with bolts but most designs use too large a bolt for them to shear.
You should send to Cub to Skyflier, he is only 13 and it is Christmas.
I got a ride in a 450 hp Stearman about a decade ago. A rush! A little over three years ago I went for a flight on a B17 the EAA flies. I highly recommend it.
You should send to Cub to Skyflier, he is only 13 and it is Christmas.
I got a ride in a 450 hp Stearman about a decade ago. A rush! A little over three years ago I went for a flight on a B17 the EAA flies. I highly recommend it.
Last edited by HighPlains; 12-21-2016 at 09:15 PM.
12-22-2016 | 12:26 PM
#61
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Burleson,
TX
HighPlains the man that gave me the few flight lesson I had is now flying the second oldest J-3 Cub in the U.S. I really need to get ahold of him and talk him into a ride. I have never flown in a Cub but did get a ride in an Aeronica Champ. What a noisy airplane that was.
Its good to see a 13 year old interested in model aviation. Maybe there is hope for the newer generation after all. Maybe he will get enough money for Christmas and he can buy the plane of his dreams.
Its good to see a 13 year old interested in model aviation. Maybe there is hope for the newer generation after all. Maybe he will get enough money for Christmas and he can buy the plane of his dreams.
Last edited by ratshooter; 01-19-2017 at 04:22 PM.
12-22-2016 | 12:53 PM
#62
My Feedback: (4)
Ok, knowing your goal helps somewhat. A lot of scale designs have a rather high wing loading because of amount of scale details. I saw RC scale flown at the AMA Nationals (usually just called the Nats) back in 1968 at Olathe Ks when I was barely 14, where Dave Platt had the most unbelievable Dauntless SBD WWII Navy dive bomber. Dave was from England and has lived in the USA for many years now.
Anyway back then almost all airplane's were built from kits, plans, or from scratch which meant the builder designed the model and then built it from a stack of wood. Because of the time it took to just build from a kit, plus the low quality of the radio equipment back then, not many of the scale fliers were very good at the flying part. That year was very windy, but not unusual in Kansas. In spite of that nearly all of the scale fliers made attempts. There were something like 7 twins entered, and 3 or 4 went home in trash bags after losing an engine in the air. Of course all were glow powered, so I suspect now that the pilots did not have them properly broke in or they were needled too lean since you were limited to a .60 engine or two engines that added up to a .60 size. So with the airplane's very heavy when compared to normal sport models, losing power was usually a crash.
Your Tower Trainer has a wing loading of about 17 oz. per square foot. That allows a multitude of errors not to cause a crash. To find out what the Tower Cherokee would fly like at 28 oz/ft^2, you would have to add about 3 1/2 lbs. of weight to your trainer. While that sounds easy to do it also means you would have to fly it a lot more gently and precisely. Pull too hard on the elevator in a turn could stall the wing in turns that it flew through with ease when lighter. Also the wing might not be strong enough and a higher speed pull up with the elevator just cause the wing to fail completely. Should you try adding weight, go easy with about a half pound at a time.
While on the subject of your trainer, you might also experiment with the balance, since most trainers are setup fairly nose heavy. You can do this by moving the battery pack back or adding weight to the tail. Once again, this is something you do in small amounts and then test fly. As a trainer, setup nose heavy, the airplane becomes very speed sensitive, which is a desired effect in a trainer but less so once you get better at flying. By moving the CG (center of gravity) back, the elevator becomes more sensitive, and the rudder response improves. So you might need to cut down the throw or just get used to the feel. Doing this to a trainer makes the airplane more reliant on the pilot for recovery and usually needs less down thrust. It will also allow slower landings and the ability to spin or snap roll. Knowing how these happen and how to either avoid them or do them and recover on command is a good thing.
BTW, I was flying models pretty much full time from the age of 10 on. But didn't get my first RC in the air until I was 16, because back then a basic 4 channel radio was about the cost of a used car.
Anyway back then almost all airplane's were built from kits, plans, or from scratch which meant the builder designed the model and then built it from a stack of wood. Because of the time it took to just build from a kit, plus the low quality of the radio equipment back then, not many of the scale fliers were very good at the flying part. That year was very windy, but not unusual in Kansas. In spite of that nearly all of the scale fliers made attempts. There were something like 7 twins entered, and 3 or 4 went home in trash bags after losing an engine in the air. Of course all were glow powered, so I suspect now that the pilots did not have them properly broke in or they were needled too lean since you were limited to a .60 engine or two engines that added up to a .60 size. So with the airplane's very heavy when compared to normal sport models, losing power was usually a crash.
Your Tower Trainer has a wing loading of about 17 oz. per square foot. That allows a multitude of errors not to cause a crash. To find out what the Tower Cherokee would fly like at 28 oz/ft^2, you would have to add about 3 1/2 lbs. of weight to your trainer. While that sounds easy to do it also means you would have to fly it a lot more gently and precisely. Pull too hard on the elevator in a turn could stall the wing in turns that it flew through with ease when lighter. Also the wing might not be strong enough and a higher speed pull up with the elevator just cause the wing to fail completely. Should you try adding weight, go easy with about a half pound at a time.
While on the subject of your trainer, you might also experiment with the balance, since most trainers are setup fairly nose heavy. You can do this by moving the battery pack back or adding weight to the tail. Once again, this is something you do in small amounts and then test fly. As a trainer, setup nose heavy, the airplane becomes very speed sensitive, which is a desired effect in a trainer but less so once you get better at flying. By moving the CG (center of gravity) back, the elevator becomes more sensitive, and the rudder response improves. So you might need to cut down the throw or just get used to the feel. Doing this to a trainer makes the airplane more reliant on the pilot for recovery and usually needs less down thrust. It will also allow slower landings and the ability to spin or snap roll. Knowing how these happen and how to either avoid them or do them and recover on command is a good thing.
BTW, I was flying models pretty much full time from the age of 10 on. But didn't get my first RC in the air until I was 16, because back then a basic 4 channel radio was about the cost of a used car.
I subscribe to the belief sticks and 4 stars are worthy second planes, but the price tag? 4 star 40 is only a kit now. There are substitutes made by less notable model brands that do the job, that I've flown both varieties, from Tower, and airborne-models.com. Check out the Sky Raider Mach 2, similar to
a 4 star 40. Very fast ARF build, 3 hours in fact, everything prehinged, perhaps like the Escapade? The other el cheapo version of the stick is the junky VMAR VStick 40, $83 shipped. It flies, but it's not pretty. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vmar-V-Stick...8AAOSwgY9XefVv Imagine anything else anywhere new or used shipped to your door for $83 that takes a .40? It's unconventional in every step of the build, takes at least 6 hours to muddle through it, but when you're done, it actually flies pretty good. $83 is a worthy investment to get past that second plane level. But once you go to a taildragger and low wing aerobatic set up, it's typically where everyone stays. From that stage you can jump into a Cub or warbird, Cherokee, what have you. What you'll find it is an adjustment from any tri-gear set up to a taildragger on take off and landing being different. You'll need more more right rudder with a tail dragger than you've experienced before. In the air, a more sensitive aileron/elevator, a quicker responding plane. Staying too long in a trainer works against that ease of adjusting into the next level.
Phoenix Models has some good second planes as well, but not for $83. Sky Raider Mach 2 is $129 plus shipping of $14, you can wait and keep watching the overstock sales that constantly run on airborne-models, $50 off made a LA Racer 40 a bargain, to my door for only $114 http://ecsvr.com/abm/shopdisplayprod...verstock+Sales They are out of the green and substituted the black/white/red one in it's place, an ARF for the price of a 4 star kit (ARF no longer available.)
They do have the $159 Stick, before coupons. Wing Loading: 19.8 - 21.3 oz/sq ft (50 - 65 g/sq dm)http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin...&I=LXBMM9&P=ML
Last edited by J330; 12-22-2016 at 01:06 PM.
12-22-2016 | 01:07 PM
#63
This is a good answer, worth reading again.
I subscribe to the belief sticks and 4 stars are worthy second planes, but the price tag? 4 star 40 is only a kit now. There are substitutes made by less notable model brands that do the job, that I've flown both varieties, from Tower, and airborne-models.com. Check out the Sky Raider Mach 2, similar to
a 4 star 40. Very fast ARF build, 3 hours in fact, everything prehinged, perhaps like the Escapade? The other el cheapo version of the stick is the junky VMAR VStick 40, $83 shipped. It flies, but it's not pretty. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vmar-V-Stick...8AAOSwgY9XefVv Imagine anything else anywhere new or used shipped to your door for $83 that takes a .40? It's unconventional in every step of the build, takes at least 6 hours to muddle through it, but when you're done, it actually flies pretty good. $83 is a worthy investment to get past that second plane level. But once you go to a taildragger and low wing aerobatic set up, it's typically where everyone stays. From that stage you can jump into a Cub or warbird, Cherokee, what have you. What you'll find it is an adjustment from any tri-gear set up to a taildragger on take off and landing being different. Phoenix Models has some good second planes as well, but not for $83. Sky Raider Mach 2 is $129 plus shipping of $14, you can wait and keep watching the overstock sales that constantly run on airborne-models, $50 off made a LA Racer 40 a bargain, to my door for only $114 http://ecsvr.com/abm/shopdisplayprod...verstock+Sales They are out of the green and substituted the black/white/red one in it's place, an ARF for the price of a 4 star kit (ARF no longer available.)
They do have the $159 Stick, before coupons. Wing Loading: 19.8 - 21.3 oz/sq ft (50 - 65 g/sq dm)http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin...&I=LXBMM9&P=ML
I subscribe to the belief sticks and 4 stars are worthy second planes, but the price tag? 4 star 40 is only a kit now. There are substitutes made by less notable model brands that do the job, that I've flown both varieties, from Tower, and airborne-models.com. Check out the Sky Raider Mach 2, similar to
a 4 star 40. Very fast ARF build, 3 hours in fact, everything prehinged, perhaps like the Escapade? The other el cheapo version of the stick is the junky VMAR VStick 40, $83 shipped. It flies, but it's not pretty. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vmar-V-Stick...8AAOSwgY9XefVv Imagine anything else anywhere new or used shipped to your door for $83 that takes a .40? It's unconventional in every step of the build, takes at least 6 hours to muddle through it, but when you're done, it actually flies pretty good. $83 is a worthy investment to get past that second plane level. But once you go to a taildragger and low wing aerobatic set up, it's typically where everyone stays. From that stage you can jump into a Cub or warbird, Cherokee, what have you. What you'll find it is an adjustment from any tri-gear set up to a taildragger on take off and landing being different. Phoenix Models has some good second planes as well, but not for $83. Sky Raider Mach 2 is $129 plus shipping of $14, you can wait and keep watching the overstock sales that constantly run on airborne-models, $50 off made a LA Racer 40 a bargain, to my door for only $114 http://ecsvr.com/abm/shopdisplayprod...verstock+Sales They are out of the green and substituted the black/white/red one in it's place, an ARF for the price of a 4 star kit (ARF no longer available.)
They do have the $159 Stick, before coupons. Wing Loading: 19.8 - 21.3 oz/sq ft (50 - 65 g/sq dm)http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin...&I=LXBMM9&P=ML
I'll ask santa lol
12-22-2016 | 03:09 PM
#65
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HighPlains the man that gave me =the few flight lesson I had is now flying the second oldest J-3 Cub in the U.S. I really need to get ahold of him and talk him into a ride. I have never flown in a Cub but did get a ride in an Aeronica Champ. What a noisy airplane that was.
Its good to see a 13 year old interested in model aviation. Maybe there is hope for the newer generation after all. Maybe he will get enough money for Christmas and he can buy the plane of his dreams.
Its good to see a 13 year old interested in model aviation. Maybe there is hope for the newer generation after all. Maybe he will get enough money for Christmas and he can buy the plane of his dreams.
12-22-2016 | 03:46 PM
#66
My Feedback: (1)
J330, I have flown the Skyraider Mach II and agree that it flys very well. I had a Thunder Tiger .40 in it with a 9x6 APC prop (it was setup for entry level pylon) and could likely hit about 100 to 110 mph. That is fast enough that the ailerons are close to wanting to flutter. For a sport setup, a 10x6 or 11x6 depending on the engine would be better all around. It has a good wing loading so take offs and landings were straightforward. If I had any complaints, it was not with the design - that is very good, but some of the hardware was not as good as a Sig kit would have, and some of the wood especially around the landing gear is kind of weak. So a bit of reinforcement there before it gets oil soaked is worth the time. I lost mine in a mid-air collision, but bought a second so I do think it is a very good design overall. They do use their own covering on them but I have seen several that were stripped down and recovered mostly for ID because having 4 identical planes on a race course is difficult.
There is no secret here about what makes a great second airplane. Unfortunately too many get bad advice or they get tempted by slick ads and shiny scale models of warbirds. After a new flier has 5 or 6 models under their belt, the loss of an airplane usually has little impact. But when they reach too far with their second or third model and fail, it seems like a significant number drop out.
If you have a model that has a tapered wing and a higher wing loading, you have to approach every flight with an awareness of a much more restrictive flight regime in mind, especially during take offs and landings as well as high g manouvers where a unexpected snap roll can lead into a quick spin into the ground. Altitude, knowledge of spin recovery, and the ability to recognize the situation and not panic are your only defense. Trust me, I've splatter'ed more than my share, but rarely on the first flight.
A few things I have learned along the way, and some that we told to me:
Never make the last flight
Never trust your eyes
If something doesn't seem quite right with the radio or servo, it's not
Don't fly downwind
Always do at least 5 touch and goes every flight
Always get a tail dragger tail up in the air and tracking before you lift off.
Always land on the main gear by bleeding off speed first.
Always check your batteries under a load before each flight.
Always check your hinges and pushrods before the first flight each day
Always range check before the first flight
If you're lucky enough to have a very good flier at your field, ask them to help you test fly and trim your airplane. When they have confidence in your flying they may let you fly their model. You will usually find out that half of the reason they fly so well, is that they know how to set up a model so it flies well. You can easily learn how to do this too.
There is no secret here about what makes a great second airplane. Unfortunately too many get bad advice or they get tempted by slick ads and shiny scale models of warbirds. After a new flier has 5 or 6 models under their belt, the loss of an airplane usually has little impact. But when they reach too far with their second or third model and fail, it seems like a significant number drop out.
If you have a model that has a tapered wing and a higher wing loading, you have to approach every flight with an awareness of a much more restrictive flight regime in mind, especially during take offs and landings as well as high g manouvers where a unexpected snap roll can lead into a quick spin into the ground. Altitude, knowledge of spin recovery, and the ability to recognize the situation and not panic are your only defense. Trust me, I've splatter'ed more than my share, but rarely on the first flight.
A few things I have learned along the way, and some that we told to me:
Never make the last flight
Never trust your eyes
If something doesn't seem quite right with the radio or servo, it's not
Don't fly downwind
Always do at least 5 touch and goes every flight
Always get a tail dragger tail up in the air and tracking before you lift off.
Always land on the main gear by bleeding off speed first.
Always check your batteries under a load before each flight.
Always check your hinges and pushrods before the first flight each day
Always range check before the first flight
If you're lucky enough to have a very good flier at your field, ask them to help you test fly and trim your airplane. When they have confidence in your flying they may let you fly their model. You will usually find out that half of the reason they fly so well, is that they know how to set up a model so it flies well. You can easily learn how to do this too.
12-22-2016 | 03:55 PM
#67
My Feedback: (1)
You would be surprised how easy it is to get an airplane ride with most pilots. Most pilots do a lot of their flights alone, and it's more fun with a passenger. It will also allow you a far deeper understanding of control inputs used in take offs and landings, especially in cross winds. And quite often, you will become their autopilot and get a little stick time.
12-22-2016 | 04:02 PM
#68
My Feedback: (4)
I have, I'll post some pics, but very easy to convert. I'd epoxy a piece of 1/8" ply inside the fuselage and mount the gear 1" to 1.5" forward of the CG. Easy to add a tailwheel to this model or a tail skid. The pushrod path to the nose gear, the control arm on the nose gear, are horrible anyway.
Last edited by J330; 12-22-2016 at 04:48 PM.
12-22-2016 | 04:10 PM
#69
I have, I'll post some pics, but very easy to convert. I'd epoxy a piece of 1/8" ply inside the fuselage and mount the gear 1" to 1.5" forward of the CG. Easy to add a tailwheel to this model or a tail skid. The pushrod path to the nose gear, the control arm on the nose gear, are horrible anyway.
Thanks for the info. Been on the fence about this plane. But maybe now I'll get one. That could be good second plane being so inexpensive. A trainee can make his mistakes on it before moving to nice scale model.
12-22-2016 | 04:55 PM
#70
My Feedback: (4)
List continues:
Covering is baggy and doesn't react like Monokote, it doesn't stick to the wood, it's like Saran wrap. You put it in the truck with tight covering and while it sits outside in the sun at the field, it becomes baggy.
The engine mount already has blind nuts behind the firewall, and the width fits a FX25 or LA40. I found a HP Gold Cup was a perfect fit like my SIG Fazer. FX/AX46 guys, it's a slow down to do the mod, an adjustable mount from Great Planes would help. But if you keep buying things to overcome the shortcomings, where is the value? The wing halves thumbscrew to the sides of the fuselage. Manual goes to an earlier version, I think I got it right.
Wheels are off center, toss them, use Dubro. Spinner needs to be tossed too. All the connector that attach the pushrods to the servo horns do not fit, order a bag of quick connectors from Tower or get out your Z bend pliers, the pushrod will bend 90 nicely, NOT pushrods from Airborne Models, they will crack.
Hatch covers are very thin and crack. Many slits in the fuselage planking is gutted like an EP model. The fuselage length is 4" shorter than a Big Stick 40, yet the wingspan is about the same. Exponential is your friend on elevator.
Nothing keeps the fuel tank in place but a velcro strap, but once you throw together a few ARFs or kits, you know to brace it with popsicle sticks. The fuel tank went together better than Great Planes ARF tanks do. I had to trim the fuselage so the tailset would lay 0 degrees horizontal.
6 hour build time as stated.
Under the servo tray is a straight shot to the landing gear block. You have to install that tray, so step 1 would be to convert it to a taildragger. I'm considering right now doing same.
Covering is baggy and doesn't react like Monokote, it doesn't stick to the wood, it's like Saran wrap. You put it in the truck with tight covering and while it sits outside in the sun at the field, it becomes baggy.
The engine mount already has blind nuts behind the firewall, and the width fits a FX25 or LA40. I found a HP Gold Cup was a perfect fit like my SIG Fazer. FX/AX46 guys, it's a slow down to do the mod, an adjustable mount from Great Planes would help. But if you keep buying things to overcome the shortcomings, where is the value? The wing halves thumbscrew to the sides of the fuselage. Manual goes to an earlier version, I think I got it right.
Wheels are off center, toss them, use Dubro. Spinner needs to be tossed too. All the connector that attach the pushrods to the servo horns do not fit, order a bag of quick connectors from Tower or get out your Z bend pliers, the pushrod will bend 90 nicely, NOT pushrods from Airborne Models, they will crack.
Hatch covers are very thin and crack. Many slits in the fuselage planking is gutted like an EP model. The fuselage length is 4" shorter than a Big Stick 40, yet the wingspan is about the same. Exponential is your friend on elevator.
Nothing keeps the fuel tank in place but a velcro strap, but once you throw together a few ARFs or kits, you know to brace it with popsicle sticks. The fuel tank went together better than Great Planes ARF tanks do. I had to trim the fuselage so the tailset would lay 0 degrees horizontal.
6 hour build time as stated.
Under the servo tray is a straight shot to the landing gear block. You have to install that tray, so step 1 would be to convert it to a taildragger. I'm considering right now doing same.
Last edited by J330; 12-22-2016 at 05:13 PM.
12-22-2016 | 05:22 PM
#71
My Feedback: (4)
I have the Escapade also, only because I bought it for $70 off scratch and dent http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/WTS1000p?&C=A and used a $10 off coupon, so $60 shipped. It was missing a tail wheel and needed wrinkles ironed out. I made a tail skid. So take a look at those ways to save money and choose an ARF for a lot less money than being rigid on one certain model at full price.
12-22-2016 | 07:13 PM
#72
I have the Escapade also, only because I bought it for $70 off scratch and dent http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/WTS1000p?&C=A and used a $10 off coupon, so $60 shipped. It was missing a tail wheel and needed wrinkles ironed out. I made a tail skid. So take a look at those ways to save money and choose an ARF for a lot less money than being rigid on one certain model at full price.
