I recently bought two nitro rc planes and I know 100% sure on is a "not beginner plane" the one I'm asking about is a little bit smaller and has a small size engine and I'm wondering if it's a good beginner plane. I'm not sure how to post pictures so if you could send me your email and I'll email you back with pictures. If it's not a beginner plane I can just go to the nearest rc airfield

A beginner plane would have a single wing on top of the fuselage, and would have dihedral (wing tips higher than the top of the fuselage), and the wings would have a flat bottom behind the main spar (not convex like the top of the wing). Smaller does not necessarily make it a better beginner plane, the airfoil, dihedral, and wing placement is much more important. All things being equal, bigger is actually better as it is easier to see in the air and is more stable in flight.

Oh, and if you have to ask if the plane is a beginner plane or not, you definitely need to go to the local club. Otherwise, 99% of the time you'll bring it home in a garbage back after the first, very short, flight.

hi rbacons the wings are tiled upwards if that makes sense, the plane is a big size

That would be the "dihedral" that RBACONS mentioned, but we still need to know if it's a high-wing (wing mounted on the top of the fuselage) or low-wing (wing mounted to the bottom of the fuselage) aircraft and what the airfoil profile is. See picture.



Another aspect to consider, though not AS important is whether the wing is bolted to the fuse or held in place with rubber-bands. Usually a trainer will have the wing held in place with rubber-bands so that when you cartwheel it on landing (notice I said "when" not "if") the wing has some give and can be shifted out of place, rather than ripping the fuse apart.

That was my first thought as I read through this new thread.

Not to take anything away from the O.P.'s post, but what if there was a thread that listed ALL of the properties that make for a great first plane? There are some proven airframes that help beginners gain confidence and experience FLYING, and not rebuilding. Would it be possible to formulate a thread that highlights WHY they are so good at that?

O.P.-- If you could upload some photos of the plane(s), it would go a long way to helping us know which plane(s) you are speaking of. Also, the suggestion to visit a local flying field is a good one. A LOT of information can be had and many clubs are very motivated to help beginners get into successful flying. IF you can post some pix, THEN perhaps we could tell you what you have, and why they would/would not be a good beginner plane.

My .o2. The community will decide.

That's a really good idea. There are already a lot of REALLY good resources on the site for educating people new to the hobby if you know where to look, but I don't ever recall seeing an Anatomy of a "Trainer" type article. I could potentially work something up but it would take some time. This is a huge subject and would need to be handled delicately as there are certainly some aspects that would be open to varying amounts of debate, but I think it's doable. ....anyway, we've probably hijacked this thread enough.

Isn't there an entire forum dedicated to this?

This short video should help you decide:

There are threads that list good trainers, but I don't know that there is a comprehensive guide on WHY they are good trainers. Most of the information could be obtained from the the Aerodynamics forum or elsewhere in the beginners forum, I just think Crafty was trying to suggest that having it all in one thread might be a valuable reference for those people just starting out who DO like to know the "why" behind the "what".

A different (better?) option would be to have several articles written with links to the articles added to the current http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/begi...ation-rcu.html sticky

Scammer if he wants your email.........Where are the monitors

In checking his other posts, he's asking about these same two planes. The OP is either legitimately asking about these two planes, or he's a scammer that recently got into R/C airplanes! LOL!

He ask the same question in this thread but I don't guess he got the answers he was looking for!!!!!!!!
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/begi...gas-plane.html

What a lot of these new-bee's don't realize is how dangerous it is to fly a glow or gas powered plane in a
park or any available field, trying to go it alone, not wanting to listen to experience people that have been
doing this for years or proficient pilots that have gone through the training criteria and advanced in to the
intermediate and advanced stages of this hobby, flying radio controlled aircraft.

Many years ago I was walking my dog in a park when I was living in Scotland and came across a young
gentleman getting ready to fly his trainer looking airplane and when I asked him if he had flown it before
to which he answered "No, first time, going to teach myself how to fly!" I replied that "It is dangerous to
fly where other people are walking and sitting in their cars." to which he said "This little plane can't hurt
anyone." (A .30 sized high wing trainer, maybe weighing about 4 1/2 pounds). When he started the engine
I stood off in the distance, dog barking like crazy at the sound, watched him taxi out to a clear spot and hit
the throttle and off it went, he maybe had control of the plane for approximately 30 seconds got totally
disorientated and crashed it straight into the side of a parked vehicle that had a lady sitting in the passenger
seat!!!!! He was very lucky that it wasn't the passenger window that it hit, but all the same it pieced the sheet
metal in the door of the car, scared the holy hell out of the woman, and no amount of "I'm Sorry" was going to
pacify her either. He almost got his butt whipped by the driver and I'm sure that the damages were substantial,
never saw him at the park again and never came to our club as I suggested earlier in the day either.

Moral of this story, get a mentor pilot or trainer pilot to guide you in you path to successfully flying RC model
aircraft............"Nuff Said"

Double Post!

I like this idea. We have a good thread on specific planes (needs to be updated, which I'll get around to eventually), but I don't guess I've ever seen one on the concepts of what makes a good beginner plane. Of course, there are differences of opinion too and regional variances to consider as well. Windy places have different trainer needs than calm places for example. I'm going to think on this for a bit and write something up. Others will, of course, be welcome to contribute as well.

I thought the cartoon posted by "do335a" nailed the problem. I also thought it was quite entertaining.

I, too, thought that the video was cute. However, I also felt that the experienced flyer in it was more condescending to the newbie than empathetic and helpful. She was approached by someone who was quite proud of his self-taught helicopter skills and also proud of his new "100mph jet" purchase. Unfortunately, it seems like she spent more time preaching doom and gloom and crushing the newbie's dreams instead of patiently explaining the 'hows and whys' of properly learning to fly r/c.

Unfortunately, this type of attitude is often prevalent in clubs. I can't count how many times I would visit a club with the intention of joining for flight instruction, camaraderie, etc; only to have my dreams trashed by the resident clique. It got so bad that I eventually resorted to teaching myself to fly. Did I go through a lot of planes? Absolutely! But their cost turned out to be easier to deal with (and more instructive) than the "advice" that I got from some of the "experts". Is this attitude prevalent in every club? Of course not! However, almost every club seems to have at least one jerk, and one is all it takes to send a newbie looking elsewhere!

Compounding the problem is that there are waaay too many manufacturers who claim that their "100mph jets" are perfect trainers! Therefore, I support the idea presented earlier in this thread about creating a sticky that would explain what features to look for in a potential trainer.

Harvey

Possible material for creating a sticky on what makes a good trainer:

DO NOT buy an ARF to learn how to fly. I'm not against ARFs (in fact, I have several myself) but I think they send the wrong message to a newbie; and that message being that it's okay to crash because you can just buy another.

I learned to fly with a CG Falcon 56 that I built in 1970. (Yes, I'm OLD! .) I remember spending MONTHS carefully building it and the last thing that I wanted to do was destroy it on the first flight. So I started out slowly and carefully with learning how to taxi, then short hops, then longer hops, then hops with a slight turn... Did any of those hops end in a crash? Yes, but since they were still close to the ground, the damage was usually limited to a shattered prop and a scuffed-up wingtip. The resultant repairs taught me as much about flying as much as the flights themselves! Eventually, I progressed to flights that ended due to running out of fuel instead of shattered props!

After getting out of the military, I had to relearn how to fly. ARFs and buddy boxes were just coming onto the scene in the late '70s and I figured that their low investment of time and money would make the relearning process cheaper. Unfortunately, cheaper led to my not taking the learning process seriously. (It was less-painful to destroy something that I didn't have sweat equity in!) I DID eventually relearn to fly but it wasn't as rewarding as it was with my hand-built Falcon!

I realize that my way of learning is probably controversial so please understand that it's simply the procedure that worked for me. Another newbie's mileage may vary!

Harvey

That video thing is awesome. It goes 100 mph.

I am going to disagree with this. The beginner should buy an ARF trainer, ideally one you can get spare components for. You can not build the same model from scratch for twice the cost of the ARF. The ARF will almost certainly come without warps or CG problems and will usually fly well from the gitgo. He will have fewer problems to sort out and if he has a crash can get back in the air quickly.

BUT he or she should be encouraged to buy a kit and start to build it at the same time as he / she learns to fly. Gently discourage any tendencies to buy a Spitfire or a P 38 and direct them to an Ugly Stick or similar.

One person I taught to fly insisted on building a Avro Vulcan with a pusher engine as his first model. I was impressed when he finished it as he had one leg and only one working arm.He did realize that he did not have the skills to fly it even after he had soloed and flown a couple of ugly sticks.

I was in complete agreement with H5487 until I read this. I think this is a great idea. It gives the noob sweat equity and knowledge of construction techniques that will become important for making repairs later while at the same time pacifying the desire to fly which SHOULD help to curb any "shortcuts" during the building process.

And I am going to agree, in part, with both J.Duncker and Buzz because both of you have made good points/rebuttals.

After rereading my post, I realized that there was probably a better way of explaining why I don't think an ARF makes a good trainer. To be sure, they ARE a cheap and easy way to get into r/c but I'm not so sure that cheap and easy is conducive to dedication. My point about hand-building my Falcon and the slow steps I took in learning to fly it was to explain that after all the work and money I put into it, crashing it was ENTIRELY unacceptable. Therefore, I took my training seriously and progressed carefully. VERY carefully!!! However, years later when I got back into the hobby, I bought an ARF with the thought that it could be easily replaced if necessary. Translated, that meant that crashes were more acceptable this time around. The end result was that I didn't feel the same need to progress slowly and not take chances. I also went through a lot of ARFs. (But I've still got that 47 year old Falcon 56, which has since been retired due to now-brittle glue joints.)

I've learned from my grandkids that if you give them something that they've invested minimal finances and/or time into, they're not as likely to stick with it. (A passing interest often declines just as fast as the time invested into it.) However, if they're willing to invest time and effort into something, they're likely to stay with it longer.

And a possible side benefit to building their own trainer is that it teaches them creativity and patience; both of which seem to be thoroughly lacking in today's society.

Harvey

Some great information in this thread.

I sort of agree with both views. There NEEDs to be some level of commitment to try and keep the plane safe (as well as people!). But, how many would fall away in the midst of the build? I think this is a situation to be handled differently for each individual. We're all different. My dad and I built a kit-bashed Kadet Sr. a few years ago. I felt terrible when the aileron connection came loose and it balled in. That actually took the wind out of my sails pretty good and bugged me for a while. I would also be disappointed if my free-to-me Ultra Stick ARF were to find the same fate.

On the other side, I've seen people router in scale replicas that they've toiled over for months and shrug it off. Everyone is different. Find what works, but by ALL means, encourage!

After spending a few hours in a hobby shop, I noticed a couple of things:
1) People tend to gravitate toward the ARF and foamy planes
2) Sales clerks tend to push the ARF and foamy planes
This kind of goes back to Harvey's post about lack of patience and instant gratification. I see the same thing in my primary hobby, R/C Hydroplanes. Many people want to get a boat and get on the water fast so, to do this, they buy a fiberglass hull that only requires painting and installing the systems. To me, that's not building anything. To me, building something means starting from bare materials and actually having to glue the materials together. To install hardware, engines and radio gear then shoot some paint is fast but, at the same time, it's not the same. The pride one gets by starting from scratch(this can be plans or a kit, just for clarification), building up from the bare materials, having to figure out how to install everything and actually make something work like it should is something one never gets when they take shortcuts. To me, anyway, assembling an ARF, foamy or something that only needs minor assembly and a coat of paint or covering is nothing more than taking shortcuts