Here is a question to ponder. In this country we have been taught that you must learn to fly on a high wing trainer, both in r/c and full scale flying. As the fact that the Cessna 150/172 is one of the most popular planes in the U.S. to learn in.

I have actually been receiving flight instruction in a Piper Cherokee. This departs from the norm but if you look at England for example a lot of private flight instruction is done with low wing aircraft such as the Piper Cherokee or Arrow. I have a couple old timers in r/c that swear by the teaching of flight with a 4 channel, low wing airplane. I see some logic to this and have jumped from both sides of the fence.

I defenatly believe in 4 channel control as you learn from the beginning to control all functions of your plane. I also think there are a few lowing r/c planes that would make excellent trainers and give the student a potential step ahead in the plane inventory.

That is just my thoughts, the greatest thing in the forums here is that we all can voice our opinions and share.

Thanks everybody.

I just had my first flight last week on my four star 60, coming from an Avistar. I think someone could be taught on the low wing no problem but I would go with a trainer first.

John

Nothing says you have to learn in/on/with a high wing aircraft, full size or model; it's just that the handling characteristics of a high wing are generally more forgiving than a low wing. If you look at the "balance" of a high wing with the fuselage weight "slung under" the center of lift, vs the low wing fuselage weight sitting above, it stands to reason there is a slightly greater pendulum effect on a high wing a/c that makes it tend to right itself. Most low wing planes I can think of compensate for this by having a greater dihedral angle (talking general purpose aircraft like your Cherokee) in the wing than high wing planes; maybe the net handling difference is negligible in a full size a/c but it is noticable in models.

When it comes down to it, you could probably learn to fly in an aerobat; the learning curve would be very steep with no margin for error. If you learn to fly a low wing, high wings should be POC. One other consideration may be pilot's visibility: in a high wing you have a less obstructed view of the ground.

This would all depend on the students natural abilities. Some are just naturals.

Personal I have trained students on both. The ones that went to low wing were the ones that were doing takeoffs and landing well on the second or third flight and I decided to buddy-box them on my own 4*

Most found out that they liked the low wing better, especially when the wind was blowing

It is actually now uncommon for full scale pilots to be trained in low wing planes. I live in Fresno,CA. There are three flight schools opperating at the here. One of them is a Cessna school so they use a Cessna 172, but there is also a school that uses a Piper Cherokee 140, the other i'm not sure of. If you reseach some of the big flight schools in the U.S. such as Embry-Riddle and Pan Am International Flight Acadamey they also use low wing planes.

I learned to fly rc with a LT40. Full scale in a Piper WarriorII @ Purdue University. I can remember that the Warrior had quit a bit of ground effect sometimes and really wanted to float down the runway. I would think that some of this could carry over to the rc world on low wing aircraft. The main reason for high wing trainers, I think, is mentioned above. The are just more predictable for a newbie to learn on. But to each his own....