I'm in need of some help thanks. After visiting the local shop I had decided to eventually buy a high wing trainer with a 46 engine. I went to another shop and the salesman said a trainer with a 46 would be too fast, he suggested buying a Big Stik 60 with a ballrace 47 engine as it had a bigger wingspan and area which would make it easier to control than the trainer. This plane has a semi symmetrical wing, although I see some high wing trainers do to. Isn't it better to have a flat wing for a first plane? Anyway which dealer is right or are they both partly right. Any help would be much appreciated.

Mickeyb,
Stick with your choice of the trainer and 0.46 engine. The "stick" will be way too maneuverable. You want the stability and time to think while learning. The left stick (on the transmitter) will be used to throttle down once full power is used for climbing to altitude. You will spend most of your time at half throttle once in the air. On the other hand if flying off a grass field the extra power will be used to take off. I have trained pilots with trainers with both flat and semi-symmetrical wings. Both do well. The sticks are fully symmetrical which is not a good thing. One pilot who soloed last year got a "stick" as his second plane. He had a really hard time controlling it and was really getting frustrated. The plane was lost to a battery failure. He is now flying a Sig Somethin' Extra and is doing much better with it than the stick.
Good luck,
Bill

I'd have to disagree with this statement. It really depends on the stik that you get. While some have smaller wing areas and higher wing loading which would not make a good first plane (they must fly faster to stay airborne). Others have big wings and lighter wing loading which would make them perfect trainers. Check out the World Models Super Stunts 40...



With nearly 900 sq in of wing but weighing in at only about 5.5-5.75lbs with a BB 46, this plane is probably more stable than the large majority of trainers.

Don't rule out the Hobbico Avistar. This is the plane that I learnt to fly with, not to mention it also offers intermediate basic acrobatic flying. It comes with a simi wing.

The Avistar is a good trainer, a lot of people at my club own them and they fly well (I still occasionally fly mine), but I think from specifications alone, the Super Sports 40 would actually make a better trainer... The Avistar has a smallish wing (around 600 sq in) and has slightly higher wing loading than most trainers (at around 19 oz/sq in with a brushing 40-46 or 20-21 oz/sq in with a BB 46), while the Super Sports 40 has a bigger wing (almost 900 sq in) and very light wing loading (although unadvertised, it's gotta be around 15-17 oz /sq in given a 5.5lb weight).

Everyone has a favorite.

Start with a high wing trainer. The trainer that most people have learned to fly on is the LT-40.

Sig offers the LT-40 as a kit (if you want to build) or an ARF. I just bought the Sig LT-40 ARF because I am getting back into RC after a 3 year break.

The first plane that I learned on was a Hobbico SuperStar and that to was a great plane.

I have heard people say that a .60 high-wing trainer is better to learn on because its easier to see. But I have never flown one of those.

Good luck,
Chris

My vote is for the Avistar by Hobbico as well. Don't let anyone tell you the .46 is too much. If you are flying mode 2 then don't push the left stick too far forward. Other than that, you should not have any problems!

I would have to say the Lt-40 is my pick as a great arf trainer.
Its easy to see and It gives you time to think if you get into trouble. If you wnat east to see and a Fun plane to learn on try the Kadet Sr. I have a 4 stroke 70 in mines and it can do loops.

The votes are in. Some do like the "stick" as a trainer. If it was the best choice for trainers then the manufacturers (and most club instructors) would follow suit. Most find it too maneuverable to be an effective trainer. A fully symmetrical flat wing is just not the best machine in most instances. The most stable plane could also be argued to be a pattern plane or a 35% or larger Extra. Try to land one however is another story. Beginners need time to think and a plane pointed in a direction that has no self righting properties will be a disadvantage to most.

There are those who will train with planes other than a "trainer" and are quite successful. It also depends on the instructor. I am chief fixed wing instructor and have over 15 new pilots on board this season. I need to rely on those who volunteer their time. Not all are as quick on the sticks as I would like. A trainer is a known and most of them fly quite well in the hands of an intermediate pilot.


With nearly 900 sq in of wing but weighing in at only about 5.5-5.75lbs with a BB 46, this plane is probably more stable than the large majority of trainers.

Quote above (in orange) from post by f2racer above.

I disagree with this statement. A stick is not "stable" it is neutrally stable which means it goes in the direction you point it. When learning a plane that will fly from one end of the field to the other without any appreciable input from the pilot is a distinct advantage. A plane that doesn't have these characteristics will be at a disadvantage for the student.

Do I like "sticks"? Absolutely! I own an original Jensen "Das Ugly Stick" that started the craze in the late 60's. Also have a H-9 Ultra Stick 60 and have had most every stick produced at one time or the other.

There are many trainers that are used to train. The .60 size is easier to see and fly for most student pilots. I frankly haven't encountered a bad trainer. I have seen quite a few that weren't assembled properly. One had the CA hinges glued in with "something" and easily parted company of the plane with a very gentle tug. After giving some advise the plane was totaled the next flying session (with another instructor at the controls) when the wing failed. There was little evidence of glue applied to the wing joiner. Of course the blame was made on the manufacturer. Following directions never came to mind.

Just some thoughts. Again I hope this helps.
Bill

If you have an instructor, my vote is the Avistar. I learned on a flat wing trainer while a friend learned on an Avistar. We both used the same instructor and a buddy box. While the Avistar was a bit more difficult to handle, with an instructor my friend soloed about the same time as me, and the Avistar proved to be a much more versatile plane. Later, when I taught my son, I trained him on an Avistar, and he picked it up in no time. The Avistar is a fun plane to fly, and capable of much more than a flat wing.

I had a LT-40 ARF w/ a Tower .46 as a trainer, and have flown other trainers too. The LT-40 is as good or better than all. The downside is that you'll grow out of it very soon if you fly very much. (I was getting bored after about 10 solos). Now the only thing I use it for is as a camera plane and for bomb/candy drops. If I was to do it over, I'd go with a high wing, semi symetrical plane, like the some mentioned above.

Don't get me wrong, the LT-40 is a great plane, but it really only served one purpose, getting from point A to B.

What a great trainer...what a great deal for the bucks...the motor and servo's are all ready mounted...all ya do is glue the wing together and screw the tail on...I think people go to the field and see second and third models and maybe feel like the high wing is cheap or something...But when you get yours together and watch those ailerons and the elevator and tail move like a real airplane, your hooked...plus this model fly's great and is very forgiving(until your throw it into a flat spin trying to trim it out, on your fourth flight) Oh' I forgot to mention, they crash like a real plane to... that model above looks pretty cool also...

Mickey B,
Go with EXCAP232's advice. The one thing I would like to add, is to get an ARF (Almost Ready to Fly version) only if you're anxious to fly right away. If not, get a good kit. Sig, Great Planes, Carl Goldberg, and Midwest come to mind right away as good kit manufacturers with good plans and step-by-step instructions. People will differ with me about this, but I still say that the quality of ARF's (or BARF's as I call them) is way inferior to a good kit. And if you live in a part of the country where you have winter and can't fly anyway, building gives you a few months to imagine those pieces of wood in front of you, boring holes in the sky next Spring! You can't even put a price on that!

LT 40.

Minn, why do you feel the need to blast ARF's? If it wasn't for ARF's, many people wouldn't be in this hobby. A lot of us don't have the time to lock ourselves in the basement all winter and build kits. I love flying, and I'm not a big fan of building, so to me, ARF's are the best thing since sliced bread....if it weren't for ARF's, I probably wouldn't be in this hobby, and I'm sure I'm not alone here. I've seen plenty of kits that were built like crap, and flew the same way....of course the same applies for ARF's. They aren't all perfect......but neither are kits. I'd rather spend my hobby time flying, and that's what ARF's are for.

See my post under "ARF's are KING" To see why I blast BARFs

glowplug, I don't think Minn is blasting ARF's. His first sentence said
"The one thing I would like to add, is to get an ARF (Almost Ready to Fly version) only if you're anxious to fly right away. "
I do agree that ARF or kit, the quality is what's been put in it. I've seen some mobile homes that were built better than custom built homes, but as with mobile homes, an assembly line ARF is probably not going to have the same attention to detail that a good builder will put into one. I fly 70% kit built planes, but if you're not into building, by all means get an ARF. I think Minn is simply showing the other side of the hobby that alot of us enjoy and take pride in.
Many of my planes, while they aren't show quality are built for and sold to people to hang in their kids' rooms for display. I don't know anyone who would buy an ARF for display.

JMHO

just read it.....and I also read your comments on why you truly dislike ARF's....because less kits of new planes are produced.....it's more ARFs these days........so scratchbuild from plans, don't take your frustrations out on ARFs

I would imagine that when people went from building from plans to kits people bashed kits. When people when from Kits to ARFs, people bashed ARFs. When people went from <25% to >25% people bashed big planes. When people went from glow to electric people bashed electric planes.

It is a national past time!

ya,I hear ya...

I agree with a lot of what everyone said. But the difference between a kit and scratch building is that the parts are already cut out for you, and they are "usually" cut out better than you can do yourself. An on the occaision that you get a bad part, you can replace it before you glue it in. So YOU control the quality of the final product.

If you REALLY can't spare the time to build, buy an ARF.

If your building is so bad that the quality of your final product is not as good as an ARF, then by all means, buy an ARF.

But if you want to have any say in what goes into the building of your model, or if you want to have (or aquire) the skills to build a quality airplane (or make repairs) then I suggest you learn to build (especially if you have all winter to do so).

If you want to design your own color schemes instead of having your plane look like everyone else's, learn to build.

My only dislike of ARF's are the people who have more money than brains, and who "can't be bothered" with silly things like building. People who just want to slap something together and go flying. And don't get me wrong, there is a lot of fun to be had by just slapping something together (the gremlin, or those flying pizza boxes come to mind). These are a fun thing to do now and then. But it's like the difference between listening to a transistor radio, and listening to a concert at Carnegie Hall. And the two should not be confused.

I have both kits and arf's. The best reason to build the kit when you are starting, is that if you know how it went together, it will be easier to repair, and you will have to repair it! Not trying to scare you, but crashing is part of learning. (have crashed my trainer 4 times so far) still learning. (trainers are supposed to look like patchwork quilts, right?) LOL Good luck Loren

I'm learning on 2 planes. One's a PT-40 from Great Planes, and an Ultra Stick 60 from Hangar9. I ONLY fly the US60 on a buddy box, and only 4 mistakes high +. I am about solo-ready on the trainer...
It's nice seeing "Ok, nice maneuver - lets get down and try that with a real airplane". I then land (sometimes have instructor land) the trainer, then have him/her launch my US60. Once up we set the dual rates to LO and have a ball. The instructor and I both have a blast with this plane. It does what you tell it. I have about 30% of full throw in LO and it's perfect once you figure out left-right / up-down.

I don't recommend spending this much money until you're sure you're IN to this sport. I will say that EVERY INSTRUCTOR I've met has said the PT-40's a great trainer. Only half of them recommend what I'm doing. It's made me realize a few things, though.

Speed planes are not what I want. I thought I did - I was wrong. Longer prop w/ less pitch recently affixed to Ult. Stick = problem gone.

3D stuff's a lot of fun. Nothing like a plane that refuses to land from a 'nominal' attitude (translation, flaps down - at idle the plane WILL NOT land, just too much lift). It's cool to see, but tough to control. Learn all about control throw playing in this mode.

Inverted flight really IS different. Not going to learn this on most trainers, ESP a PT-40. Your mileage may vary but mine's tough to keep inverted. Constant fight. With the ultrastick, you simply move the ailerons for a second and you're inverted. No argument.

It's easier to bribe busy instructors to teach me on the ultra stick. They say something about 'more fun'. Hmm.

The Ultra Stick's BETTER for learning with low rates when you're training to land in cross-winds like we get in TX. The PT40's a nightmare with all that dihedral. The stick drifts with the wind, the PT40 bucks and rolls with it.

Thanks for the help guys, think I'll go with a trainer and an OS 46 LA. Went to a third dealer he and a customer said the engine, an MGS 47, was not very good and the Stik would perhaps be too lightly built for a beginner. Could the other dealer have been trying to rid himself of stock to a victim? I would hope not.

It will be an ARF Seagull 40 or Excel 2000 because I want to get flying quickly. My second plane will more than likely be a kit.