Hello all I've been building for awhile now (warbirds) but last weekend I went out to an open house that my local club had and got to buddy box fly an Easy fly? Trainer. This plane had alot of dihedral in the wing. Now granted they didn't let me take off or land but I found it really easy to control. I tried a few tricks such as loops and tried to invert it but I think it made the instructor nervous and he righted the plane.(It was his plane) This did one thing for me as I at first just wanted to build it made me want to fly! So I am putting away my advanced model building an ordered a trainer. I ordered a Great Planes PT 40 mark II. My question to you all is about the wing dihedral. Should I build it as the really stable version with alot of dihedral as an ultimate beginner or should I build it with the flatter wing and let my overconfidence from my one and only flight get the better of me? I've also thought about at a later time converting this plane to a tail dragger once I've gotten the hang of it to help me progress to a low wing tail draggin trainer. I've read the reviews from members but was lookin for a little more feedback

Personally, I would suggest building the flatter wing, getting a good instructor, learning to fly it and then you will have an advanced trainer instead of one that is just a putt putt. If you put a lot of dihedral in it, you will have a basic trainer. Flatter and you will have something you can do more with later. Get them to help you through solo and you will do fine.

I have a PT60 built with the lower amount of dihedral. It is still plenty to make it a very forgiving plane. If you want to fly it around inverted I'd definately go with the lesser amount. Mine is a tail dragger. If you want to change it later, why don't you build it with a tail wheel and dual locations for the main landing gear.

Flatter wing for sure. Let your instructor handle the stability issues at first thats what hes there for. After a couple of flights it won't matter

Hey thanks guys for your feed back! It is much appreciated. I've noticed that (kits) as trainers are not that plentiful. I hoped I picked a good one! I was all set to build with the exagerated dihedral but after actually trying to fly was really confused and I really like the Idea of setting the thing up for the traildragger converion at a later date from the get go.

Ok next question for you guys should I build it with the rubber bands or bolts? I do hope to learn some arobatics with it as I'm not into a (putt putt) plane. I do realize the principle of the rubber bands however I feel they look tacky. But if they might save the plane on a three point landing(prop, wing tip & one wheel) I'll do it. Are there any advantages to the bolts?

The advantages (for a beginner) are actually in the rubber bands not the bolts.
Having the wing rubber banded on will not stop you from performing areobatics when you are ready

Slimey rubber bands are a pain in the *****. Bolts!

A small amount of dihedral in a trainer, beginner or advanced, is a good thing. Look at your warbird wings. Too much dihedral is a pain in the butt.

Rubber bands are there to let the wing detach in the event of a sudden, unexpected contact with the earth. Extra rubber bands permit aerobatics. Bolts are good, but usually assure damage in the contact with earth situation.

Either method is fine, but both have downsides. Pick your poison.

The PT40 is an excellent trainer... and stick with the rubber bands.

Thats one of the great things about building!!!! do all the deciding before you start, the fuse can be built to accept bolts or rubber, and there is no law agaist building two sets of wings ,one flatter than the other.


Highlander

I've seen four planes converted to bolts. Two of them then had interference between the aileron links and the bolt blocks, which had to be fixed. Two had the wings pop off later, due to bolts or blocks pulling out. Another had a wing break (granted, it was a WOT pullout...) These were two Aerostars, an Eagle II, and an Arrow.

Not to say it can't be done without problems, but I would recommend you sell the plane and build one with a bolt-on, rather than waste the time screwing up a perfectly good rubber band mounting system.

My 2¢ worth,
Dave Olson

You can go either way. Put the bands in a coffee can of kitty litter and the oil will be gone, or replace them every flight. Personally, I prefer bolts. If you hit it hard enough to take the wing off and have enough bands on it to hold the wing properly, you are going to do almost as much damage. 6 of one, half a dozen of the other. Either way is good.

I totally agree with Flyboy. Go with bolts. The precision of getting the wing on the same every time is worth it alone. I have never seen that rubber bands saved me any in a crash.

Mark Shuman

The PT-40 is a terrific trainer.

Definitely less dihedral.

I never minded rubber bands, except for the looks, and I have seen them save a few wngs during "cartwheeled" landings. Advantages of bolt ons? The only advantage is more secure mounting, but that only matters if you don't use enough rubber bands. I'd suggest at least 10 to 12, and cross the last 2 to 4.

You seem as though you have some natural ability (or some experience you haven't shared), so I'd say start off with the plane as a tail dragger. Trike gear is so much easier that IF you ever get one, it'll be simple to go from taildragger to trike.

Welcome to RCU, and have fun!
Dennis-

wow ok thanks so much for all the great feedback guys. In reply to Dennis no I have no experiance I havn't shared just an ability to build and a good first experiance flying. So I'm trying not to let my confidence get the better of me! In thinking about the project I think I'll split the difference with the dehideral leaning more to the flatter. In my warbird building 4deg seems perty common so why not start there. After all it is a kit and there is no law that says I got to build it like the plans show! Who knows I think I got a set of retracts layin around (just kiddin) But I do like the Idea of decreasing the ammount of dehideral as I do think it will suit my needs better. And as far as the bolts go I guess seings how the kit comes either or I may as well do both and start off with the rubbers If I really dont like em I can always ditch em an install the bolts. Dennis as far as starting off with it being a tail dragger I'm not so sure about that one Like I said I'm a builder not a pilot hell I've never even taxied a plane before

I'm almost the same age as you. Build that wing flat. I built an LT 40 with just a little dihedral. Now I wish it was flat even though my plane flies great. Easier to align everything also. The plane will still have inherent dihedral from being a high wing. If you have a sim, flatten out the wing and see how much better it flies compared to a lot of dihedral. I think that plane manufactures spec that much dihedral so your plane is a PIA to fly so you want another plane. Mine is rubberbanded, wish it was wing bolted. Not that bands are that hard to work with, just a PIA compared to bolts. You might want to go with nose gear also. While learning to fly you have enough to worry about without dealing with tail gear. I added some dubro synthetic landing gear to mine. It adds a little weight but it never bends and my plane tracks really well because of it. Other companies make synthetic gear also. Something to consider.

Well ok guys thanks again for all the advise... I've finnaly made up my mind I got the plane kit from fedex yesterday and started putting it together today. I shure hope it flys better than it looks in the box what a pile o cr.....! The lower fuse halves are so warped I had to use epoyx and clamps just to get halves to join to themselves and doublers to join up But I guess I cant complian to much for only 70$ The rest of the kit is much better although there are still manny warped pieces. This build should be a cake walk for me but the real chalange is building a strait plane out of a bunch of banna shaped lumber Well in making up my mind I decided upon going with the b-wing less dihederal and rubbers. After giving it some thought I'll probably give the thing to my 12 year old son next summer anyways and buy me a low wing job. The way I see it is by then I'll probably want somthin new anyway and it wouldn't hurt to let my kid have a go at this one so I'll keep it with some dihederal and more forgiving pop off wings (I saw him attempt to fly at the same open house as me and it wasn't perty)Again thanks to all everyones thoughts were considered.

You made a good choice going with the PT-40. I built one 5 years ago, and the first time it was flown the instructor had me make a small adjustment to the elevator and that was IT! I built mine with the 'A' wing and even with the dihedral it loops, rolls, does split S's. Even got a half way decent hammerhead out of it.
One time while I was still buddy-boxed, the instructor took over for a few seconds and had the plane flying in a circle, banked slighty to the left. It made a couple of laps and the instructor said "Those are pretty good circles. Now try something else."
I said "I thought you were flying it?"
"Nope. You've been flying it."
I said" Uuuuhhhh.... no, I haven't."
"Pretty stable ship you built there."
I use rubber bands on mine, too. At the end of the flying session, just put them in a plastic sandwich bag filled with cornstarch. It dries out the rubber bands quite nicely.
Mine is bright yellow on top of the wings, elevators, and the rudder. as well as the top half of the fuselage. The bottom of the wings, elevators, and fuselage are bright red. The plane is known as "The Flying Hot Dog" aka. "The Winged Wienie."
Enjoy it!!

Chris,
Glad you made up your mind. Sorry to hear about the warped lumber though. The PT 40's were the best of the breed just a few years back, so it's sad to hear they're letting the quality slip.

When it's finished and you're thinking about that low wing, I think the Goldberg Tiger 2 would suit you to a "T".

Decent kit from what I hear, and an amazingly stable little plane. ($99 at Tower.)
Dennis-

Hey guys well I'm really pleased to hear that everyone likes the pt40 so much. I had no Idea what I wanted for a trainer just looked at what was out therre and went for bang vs. buck Well Dennis as far as being the best of the breed I don't know I suppose I may have gotten a kit selected by someone having a really bad day. This is the first plane from GP that I have built. I think thier plans, Inst., and design are top notch but there wood sucks. All is going ok and mannaged to get the fuse completed today(It's even strait) And I'm going to mount the eng, landing gear and tail feathers tommorow

If the wood is bad call GP! They should replace any bad wood ASAP. Take pics of it. At the most you'll get some extra balsa. I hear things like this about GP a lot... Glad my last two kits have been Sig. Awesome wood! : )

OK, I HAVE A TRAINER LIKE RC PLANE, ITS ABOUT A 5.5 FOOT SPAN, AND I AM MISSING PLANS (AND I AM TYPING IN CAPS), i have just a fuselage and wing, thats all, i need plans for the tail section of a trainer, can anybody help???

also, i have a 42 inch (span) playboy senior, and i am wondering if a Cox .049 would be to much power? also, is it possible to get a non muffler version (cant pressurize tank) to run off a standard 1 0z tank?? if it isnt.....anybody willing to donate a Norvel ame .049? thats thrttled and has a muffler........i am jus thinking i can use this simpler version to fart around the park or yard. i am probaly going to mount a 1oz sullivan seemless onto a pylon, and have the tank sandwhiced between 2 pylons, it would look like this |{}|
|{}|
the {} = tank
the | = pylon

knowing me, no matter what i will be told, i will have to try it out for my self

anyway, happy flying

Erik

Erik,
You should start your own thread. What you just did is called "Hijacking" a thread.
Dennis-

Hey Dennis Thanks for the recomendation about the Goldberd Tiger 2 I took a peek at it. But you know it's people like you that are getting me in trouble with the wife (she for some silly reason thinks I spend to much on this addiction) I'll keep it in mind though! But, I should probably wait and see if Santa will bring it to me I won't be ready till next season anyways.