abufletcher

For the past couple of months I've been flying my RCM trainer and am beginning to wonder what else I'd really like any plane to do. As my primary interest is WWI scale, I don't care about extreme aerobatics. If I NEVER do a torque roll, I'll be a happy camper. I've flown loops galore (six in a row about 50 feel of the ground the other day), lazy immelmanns, and a bunch of other stuff that I don't have names for. My 14 year old son, Fletcher, is a much more accomplished pilot (thanks to Nintendo-thumbs) and can fly the thing inverted all over the sky. A couple of weeks ago I converted it to a taildragger and have been having the time of my life.

So I'm wondering what more (other than GOOD LOOKS) would I really want out of a model (airplane). I suppose to partially answer my own question, I'd need a plane that DOESN'T fly so well -- something that is a bit more of a handful -- one that when I apply full elevator and rudder goes into a serious spin and doesn't self-recover in about 10 feet.

Maybe another take on this question would be what would be a good transition (fun fly not scale project) plane for someone interested in WWI biplanes? BTW, here's a shot of my almost completed second plane, first scale project, and first ever RC build.

a65l

My Feedback: (17)

Try one of them Super Flying Models Eindeckers. Semi symmectrical wing, should actually stall and spin, plus you'll get some experience with a taildragger and inverted engine. Will give you roughly the look you want, cheap plane, and still has some forgiving qualities to it. Plus it looks like a WWI plane.

Andy

MinnFlyer

My Feedback: (4)

If you really want to get into Bipes (and who wouldn't?) I would suggest getting the Sig Hog bipe.

abufletcher

Andy, actually I DID get a BUSA Eindecker 40 kit shortly after soloing. But in the process of building it, I modified it beyond all recognition (see photo above). All that remains of the kit is the BUSA style flat-bottom airfoil, alierons, and a couple of degrees of dihedral -- the rest is scratch-built to scale drawings from the NASM. Hopefully, I'll be flying it this weekend.

Mike, the Sig Hog looks nice! How would you expect this to fly differently than a trainer? Bare in mind that I've already been flying the trainer as a taildragger for a couple weeks and find it INFINITELY EASIER to take off and land this way than in its trike configuration -- plus not having to repair the dang nose-gear all the time.

Here's another shot of my EIII prior to the addition of markings, rigging, and scale detail.

quint-rcu

My Feedback: (24)

As an avid scale builder and flyer, may I suggest that aerobatic profiency and the ability to fly and recover from wind and excursions beyond the average pilots's flight envelope are most important in living with scale aircraft. Scale planes are not the best flyers in the world and a skilled pilot will add insurance to bringing it home alive. I'm an old goat that fought the aerobatics and 3D craze until I learned how to do it. I don't fly my 3D planes often, but knowing how and lots of 'stick time' sure have come in handy.

A good next step is not a bad flying plane, since good aerobatic trainers fly very well, it's just a plane that will not fly itself and that will stay where you point it. You said you like bipes, but a better next step would be something like a SIG 4* or a WM T-34. Get flying proficiency and who knows, you just might have some fun along the way to that bipe. When you feel good enough I can suggest a spin in something like my Beech Staggerwing bipe. - That'll get your attention quick.

quint

abufletcher

Quint, sounds like really good advice. I obviously have a long way to go.

Scar

My Feedback: (3)

Quint does offer good advice, but I'll just take issue with the 4-star suggestion. No problem with 4-stars, but I'm thinking that the step up you're seeking is a symmetric airfoil wing with no dihedral - or less than the 4star's. Then you can do knife-edge type stuff without rolling out. You will also have to land a bit faster - not something one learns from a stock 4-star.

I'm guessing you have trouble holding your RCM in knife edge, feel free to correct me if not. I learned a lot of that type stuff with a Lanier TR260 (the old plastic ARF) and a Vmar Extra 300.

If you can make crosswind landings and sideslips with that RCM, you're going to find a 4star very similar. More agile, but still a floater with some self correcting tendencies.

Just my opinion, no offense intended!
Dave Olson

abufletcher

Dave, thanks for the suggestions. One reason I'm not all that interested in symmetrical airfoils is that there just WEREN'T any back during WWI. You're right about doing knife-edge flying with the RCM trainer but then I really don't want to be able to do a knife-edge or any of the other "high performance" maneouvers. Here's the sort of "mission oriented" flying I really want to be doing (see pix below).

In general I find the sort of pattern flying I see at the field fairly uninteresting and unlike anything an actual warbird pilot (WWI or II) would be likely to perform. For example, a sharp nose-over dive would kill the engine on most (non-fuel injected) engines thus the diving half-roll was born out of necessity.

From everything I've read, here are some of the prime trouble areas when handling the "real deal" WWI type A/C: Nose overs, nasty spins, weather-vaning, and lots and lots of drag leading to rather sudden stalls at slower speeds. So what sort of next plane will best prepare me for these eventualities?

BTW, I did go out the other day and get a Lucky Stix (40) primarily because I can just stick everything from my trainer in it and fly but also to give my son a more aerobatic plane which HE is definiely interested in!

ICE_MAN

My trainer couldn't fly with no wings......[:@]

hnesitd1

abufletcher - I believe you've desribed a passion for not just scale airplanes, but WWI airplanes in particular..............your descriptions are my sentiments exactly. Good advice regarding becoming a master pilot before risking a labour of love, eh? Probably what you are looking for is a scale (WWI) aircraft with more scale-like, engine POWER. Anyway, I thought your post unusual in an interesting way..............good luck.

abufletcher

So maybe my REAL question is WHAT COULD THE WWI A/C DO THAT A TRAINER CAN'T? Let's take something daring like a Sopwith Camel or a Dr.I for instance.

hnesitd1

I think that flying with SCALE-like power would be a challenge to any pilot with any aircraft. I mean, attending a fun fly and seeing a B17 fly inverted is hardly realistic, eh? A good forum discussion might be WHY do certain people get nostalgic over certain types of aircraft. I believe that flying these aircraft gives them a feeling of re-living the past in certain respects. Also keep in mind that a person on deck with a trainer draws a lot less respect than an individual with a 1/3 scale Mustang, Camel, etc; there is a LOT of (discrete) bragging rights in this hobby. Really though, it is about personal satisfaction; usually in building, flying, designing, owning, etc. To basically answer your question.........a hamburger satisfys your hunger; just like a T-Bone steak, ie, the Trainer will fly just like a fully scale Sopwith Camel but what a difference re: satisfaction.

Razor-RCU

My Feedback: (50)

It is EASIER as a tail-dragger than trike? Does not sound normal---

DBCherry

My Feedback: (4)

What could a Sopwith Camel or Dr.I do that a trainer can't? Nothing! (Except maybe spin well.)

Seriously, if you want to learn what a WWI aircraft felt like to fly, I'd suggest flying that Eindecker 40 on say a 40 size four stroke engine, because even a 40 two stroke will be too much power for scale. Or put a 52 four stroke on it, then set the throttle so it'll never get above 1/2.

Have fun with whatever you fly!
Dennis-

TOPGUNNER

humm

abufletcher

Tail-dragger easier? Hell yes! I break fewer props (none since the conversion), spend more time flying and less time fiddling with the nose-gear, and even taxi more reliably. Take offs were a snap the very first time both for me and my 14 year old son. Landings were smoother -- slow stall landings just seemed natural. My son seem to prefer to "fly in onto the runway" at slightly higher speeds. Ground handling couldn't be better (tail wheel connected to rudder).

On the topic of scale power, I agree that people tend to overpower their models. I have a 52FS in my Eindecker but will probably keep it around 1/2 throttle most of the time (but won't limit myself by setting it up that way).

Here's my RCM taildragger.

SST

My Feedback: (2)

On the scale power subject, I want enough extra power to get me out of a bad situation when necessary, therefore I will always go with the largest practical engine I can use. I'm usually putt-putting around at half-throttle most of the time. That's why we have throttles. But I agree that there's nothing worse than some guy rolling his scale Chipmunk 5 feet, then pulling a 75 degree climb out. Steep approaches and pancake landings look just as ridiculous.

DBCherry

My Feedback: (4)

abufletcher,
Glad to hear you have a four stroke in that thing. Two strokes in scale aircraft is another one of those things I find annoying. Maybe annoying is a bit harsh, but it detracts so much from the aircraft. [:@]

I wasn't serious about locking the throttle, there are times when you might need the additional power to save the plane, but was only trying to illustrate power that would be more "scale".

I too have a number of pet peeves about people flying scale planes. Like the scale Extras, CAPs, and such that snap roll so fast that the pilot would instantly die. It's also one of the reasons that I don't like 3D. Although I admire the talents of the pilots that do it well, and enjoy watching someone drag the rudder through the grass, there isn't a full scale aircraft that's capable of most of it. (Yet.)

I'm also not interested in "aerobatic" aircraft capable of 3D. I'd much rather have a large WWI or WWII plane, or a big old bipe (like that Staggerwing mentiomned).
Dennis-

smokingcrater

most, if not all, 3d maneuvers are already duplicated on full size aircraft, at least to some extent. as far as the non-scale flying extras and related, we don't fly them because they are scale, we fly them because they are a great aircraft design. scale has never entered my mind!

anyway, i agree with the overpowering a nice scale aircraft though. actually, i shouldn't say overpowering. overpower all you want, just don't use it or make it apparent. a warbird accelerating straight up is horrible. it is nowhere capable enough for 3d and not scale enough to be taken seriously on that side either.

if you want to learn to fly underpowered, find a cheap park flyer. it will teach you energy managament VERY quickly!
[8D]