I think it's safe to say that big trainers with plenty of self-righting dehedral and tri-cycle gear is the way to get started in RC, but I would like hear from the veterans out there that think flying a floater is EASY!. My hunch is that all those EDGES, CAPS, etc. have a better take-off and landing personality that our KITES w/engines. In fact I bet that if you handed your Tx to a club member that's been flying 3D rockets lately that he would probable have a hard time landing it!. My point is, rather my theory is, a low wing plane with lots of control surfaces ( like those CAPS,EDGES) are built to fly rather than take punishment and are more responsive to controls than our trainers. Some will say "Well that's the idea rookie!" I say not-so fast after all an instructor and a buddy-box are part of the ritual anyway. I'm not much of a flier... YET but I'm willing to bet that if you asked the most experianced fliers out there what would they recommend they would say..... well let's hear from some of them!. THis is not an inexpensive sport/hobby and crashing is part of every learning curve so the overall effect is " Crash 2 trainers @$300 each then purchase the next level high-wing, crash it, then move onto the 1st low-wing, crash that... "Why not cut to the chase and start with a...... SIG 4*-60???

remember what forum this is in......

if people want to start learning to fly with a plane like a 4*60 then that s up to them but i bet this will be a very expensive hobby for them. to say that take off and landing is easier with a low wing especially for a beginner is ridiculous. the whole idea of using a trainer (floater) is to get the new pilot used to maintaining control of the plane he is flying. The problem using a low wing for teaching a new guy to fly is that most of these planes require the pilot to fly the plane to the ground which means using more power/speed to avoid tip stalling or other characteristics that low wing planes may have. as to learning to fly with a low wing, it can be done but i would not advise it. learning on a cap or edge i would be mortified if a new guy that turned up at the field wanting to learn with one of these planes. if they had an attitude and still wanted to go up i would put it up and see how long it stayed in the air. I fly low wing planes and have been caught out on landing when the wind has gotten under the wing causing the plane to cartwheel down the runway.
paul

Mikel-T

In your example, the 4* series has been used a first trainers since they land as slow or slower than most trainers plus they definitely cut the wind much better than any trainer I have flown, but when powered by a strong engine, they are defintely faster. It is possible as long as the student has a fairly good instructor.

I do get the chance to fly trainers in the instructor role and also quite allot of maiden flights and have also been known to allow my students to beat on my trusty 4*40 now and again. It is modified to take more than the average abuse and with the Saito 56 it's strong but not overly fast. Toss in a 46AX turning an 11X7 prop and it screams.

It's a matter of skill. Some students have a good knack of how to fly and usually can handle the trainers slow flight and floating tendencies very well by the second or 3rd flight. This is when I break out the 4*.

Other students have never seen an RC plane let alone even held a transmitter and have a hard time with the sticks. This is where a trainers slower speed will shine the most. It gives them and the instructor more time for recovery.

As far as the experienced going to fly a trainer. All I can say is this. There are times when I have had no students for a few weeks and then one shows up and I need the first flight to maiden the plane and to get my thumbs used to being slower on the sticks. My precision does not suffer since I try to be as precise as possible with whatever I am flying at any given moment. I just have to remember to slow down some

It all boils down to what the student can handle. The unspoken rule that everyone must start on a trainer is bunk, BUT, if a student does want to train on a low wing I see no wrong in grilling them to death to make sure they understand that things will happen much faster for them if they do not use the trainer first and also to prop the engine to keep the speed down and have good prop braking.

To me flying a floater is easy. I have a Funtana 90 that just loves to float ( as you call it, a big "kite" with an engine in moderate winds), a Twist that can float better than most trainers do, a 4* 40 that has one of the best glidpaths of all my planes, an Ultimate that does not float but is very predictable on landing and a CG Sukhoi that must land at a higher speed than most trainers and if you try to float it you will be picking up pieces.

A floater can also be a pain in a headwind or crosswind as they will not want to land, that is where keeping in a couple of clicks of throttle will help and this is also required of all highwing trainers.

The other thing that a high wing has against it, at least in my eyes is the crosswind takeoff and landing. All that fuselage just sitting there under the wing plus the wing itself being higher up and allowing more air under it. It will definitely help in learning crosswind control and sideslip. Sideslip on a low wing can be tricky since the wing that is being dipped into the wind must be level at touchdown or a cartwheel is in order. A high wing can be sidesliped right onto the ground in some cases but care must be exercised in making sure the rudder is straight before the nose wheel touches.

So you see, each has their own good and bad points, it's a matter of preference and initial skill level. At least in my eyes.

That's pretty well put bubbagates. I will say the BEST reason to start on a trainer is simply, it gives the new pilot more time to think and react. Most new pilots are just a bit behind the plane when they start. A trainer gives a wider margin of time to react to what the plane is doing. The average low wing plane goes exactly where you point it. If you are not on top of it and flying it at all times, there is a GREAT possibility a new pilot could lose control.
As for crashing being a part of the learning curve...it doesn't have to be. In the time that I have been flying, I have only lost one plane. It was not a case of dumb thumbs, rather a battery failuer. I did have a great instructor though.

Jim C

You probably could learn on a 4 star; you mentioned flying....crashing, moving up, flying.....crashing, moving up again, flying....crashing. The idea is to have the basics down enough by the second plane, that crashing is the exception rather than the rule. Sure, there will be events beyond your control that will cause a crash--mechanical failure, deadstick, etc, but they will be less due to the inexperience of the pilot. Hopefully, by the time you get to owning your Edge, Cap, whatever, you've got takeoffs and landings down to a fine art. There's nothing better, or more forgiving, than a "floater" to teach the fine control needed to land. When I first started flying, after my first solo, I felt that I had about a 40% chance to land without beating something up. A year later, I give myself about a 95% chance, based on skill alone, and excluding the unknown factors.

There's a way to test your theory, though. Without flying your trainer again, buy yourself that Cap, Edge, Extra, you want, and see how long you can make it last.

Thanks Aeronaut,

I forgot about the crashing part of his post.

Crashing does happen for one reason or another. My one and only crash was after 477 flights on various planes. Between losing my depth perception and flying a new plane (Seagull Extra 300S cost $145.00) on it's 6th flight, 4th of the day and being at a new field I was rolling out of a turn to base and the right wing barely caught the very top of a tree about 100 yards away from me. It was wierd in the sense I saw the plane come apart and then about 2 seconds later the sound hit.

The plane was destroyed, the engine and radio survived well and are now flying in my Funtana.

Crashing can happen, some are pilot error (dumb thumbs), mid-air collisions with a bird or another plane, some are mechanical failure (some part of the radio or engine or control equipment came loose or died) and some are the plane itself, (manufacturer defect in the case of an ARF, glue joint failure, weak balsa or plywood, etc...). Confidence and common sense in your flying go a long way in helping to avoid what everyone calls the inevitable crash.

As I mentioned in my previous post, learning on a low wing is possible as long as the low wing is capable of flying slow as in the 4* series. A CAP or Edge or Extra do not qualify for training purposes in my book. As a matter of fact, neither does a J-3 Cub.

A CUB that is flown without coordinated turns is a death spiral just waiting to happen but they are billed by most all the ARF manufactures as a trainer, but a CUB will definitely teach you to use your left thumb and that is important. All my students learn sideslip landing which forces the use of the left stick in the air and all but a few have no fear of the wind. They complain during the training process but once they nail that first landing in a 90 degree crosswind when the "more experienced" guys are sitting in the pits, they then see the benefits of the left stick and become much better pilots.

Try it sometime, it's not easy at first but a sideslip with teach more about aircraft control in all 3 axis plus power than most any other manuever. Hovering also teaches aircraft control, but is not for students.

The point is, you must know what to teach and when to teach it and the proper tools to use that will give the persepct student pilot the best chance for success based on skill level.

enough said...

Flying a trainer is easy. Some of the aerobatic planes, especially 3D, are also easy. Flying other aerobatic planes is anything but easy. As has already been mentioned, the fact that the trainer is slower is a big plus for a beginner. Most of the more "advanced" planes are designed to be light. They cannot take the abuse that a beginner "may" inflict on a plane. I do not think the takeoff and landing characteristics of aerobatic planes is easier than that of a trainer. Perhaps they look easier to you because more experienced pilots make them look easy.

Crashing should not be part of the learning curve of a typical beginner. Mishaps may occur, but not the "crash 2 trainers..." scenario you describe. Most beginners I've been around continue to fly their original trainer long after they move on to other planes. My trainer plane became unflyable not because of a crash, but due to fuel soaking in the tail.

OK. Flying a floater IS easy.

In fact flying anything conforming with sensible aerodymic design principles, built true and with the CG appropriately located is easy for the accomplished RC driver. Flying a floater just requires an alteration of technique to accomodate design characteristics, but adherence to the same basic rules of aerodymaics and operation.

Would you like to translate this into understandable English or something which loosely resembles what you actually meant to say?

If you are trying to suggest that it's easier to land the above, then you would not only be wrong, but indulging in an overgeneralisation. Depending upon individual design, especially wing loading and whether washout has been built into those Edges and Caps, they require superior skills to consistantly approach on speed and land accurately and safely - which is why so many barely in control idiots choose to approach and land way too hot.

The rules of physics and aerodymics remain the same for both. Technique and finesse required are derived of an understanding of these in conjunction with accomplishent through discipline and practice of those.

I was wondering if you had one. A point that is.

My advice. Less romantic notion, less opinionation from a bit of lay reading acquired 'knowledge', and listen with your ears. The ears hear better than the mouth, and don't forget to attempt to understand with the brain as it makes a better job of turning acquired knowledge and experience into understanding and demonstrated skill than does the ego.

Not in my book it isn't. And neither does it need to or should it be. With the exception of an occasional circumstantially unavoidable true accident, 95% of incidents are user induced and totally avoidable through the application of airmanship, discipline and competence imparted in good training.

Apart from using the most appropriate 'tool' for the job, the most important inventory items in any RC beginners training is a skilled instructor, the acceptance of minimum standards which are sadly deficient in RC, and his/her (student) attitude.

BTW, SIG's 4 Stars are all "floaters".

Mike,

The others have pretty much said it all, but I'll answer your question from another angle:

You're absolutely right, a plane like a 4* - Tiger II - or even an edge or extra IS easier to fly than a trainer. This is due to the fact that with a more advanced airplane, you don't have to fight the Self-Righting capabilities that a trainer has. They go where you point them.

The problem is: If you point them in the wrong direction, you have zero-point-squat time to recover before you walk out to pick up the pieces.

The next problem lies in the fact that we are all different, and learn at different rates. Personally, I much prefer to train someone on a "Second Plane". And most of my students DO start out with an intermediate model, BUT, before he or she buys anything, I like to take them up with the Club Trainer. This will give me a good idea of how fast they will learn, and/or what natual ability they have. If they do well, I recommend they get something like a 4* or Tiger, or a whole list of others, and start from there.

But as an RCU contributor, it would be very unwise to tell someone to start out with a more advanced plane due to the fact that we have no idea of the capabilities of other readers.

Which is why so many of us stress the importance of finding the club in your area and meeting your instructor.

A Trainer also gives the basic of how things work.
It is a learning tool use in many aspect other then flight itself.
Understanding woodwork, mechanical, electronic and lift
also depends on the indiviual.

A simple question of , would every new beginner seal the hinge line,
or balance the wing ?
There's still people flying without stripes on the bottom of the wing on trainners,
if you know what I mean.

Flying is onething, repairs are another.
From my own experience, repairing a trainer or somthing like a 4*
is so much easier than an Extra or a Cap.

Repair? Repair!!!???? Isn't this 2004?

Heaven forbid should the model be allowed by the instructor to be damaged by the student under training, who repairs when a new ARF can be purchased for less than the local retail price of its covering?

As a prolific builder of yore, I for one can unashamedly say I'm glad the ARF has finally 'arrived'.

If your average R/C 'pilot' spent less time gossiping in the field shed devoting the time instead to circuits, or the attainment of true proficiency were allocated equal priority to presentation of his latest piece de resistance, then he would seldom have any need to replace and never a need to <shudder> repair.

Trainers have evolved to the point where they really are very good for training --- & handling a low wing-loading model is part of that training. It is very much easier for a novice than trying to land a high wing-loading model, which is why warbirds etc. are really lousy trainers. If you don't want your trainer to float, try shifting the C-of-G well forward & give it a whirl -- I suspect that you will soon be back to floating.

I would say you could get away with learning on a U CAN DO or a 4* but it would be absolutely stupid to try to train with an Edge or Extra. Yes they fly well BUT they are totally unforgiving and as Minn said you point them and they go.

Heres the thing, with a trainer type airplane if the trainee screws the pooch and puts the plane into imminant danger the trainer can take the controls and just manhandle the plane back to safety. You can even do this with a pattern plane or a FUNFLY, but not with a Scale Aerobatic plane like an Edge, Extra or Cap.

The reason they fly so "well" is because they have excellent flight characteristics but they also have EXCELLENT stall characteristics which is why they are so aerobatic.

So back to imminant danger and impending crash but this time with an Edge, Extra, Cap,,, trainer takes the controls and yanks back on the elevator and rudder on a scale cap or edge and the plane suddenly and violently stalls into an unrecoverable attitude at low altitude and into the ground it goes. If you dont believe me ask someone you know who flies one and they will tell you about how sensitive the elevator is and how critical proper management of the elevator and rudder are.

Thats not saying they will fall out of the sky at any moment like a P51,, they wont, they fly very well and they are easy to fly...... For an experienced pilot who knows how to keep the plane out of trouble.


Trainers are very forgiving of total screwups where trainee has put the plane in the wrong attitude, at the wrong altitude with full throttle and the trainee has NO IDEA how to get out of it,,, which is where the trainee normally asks me "you got it?"

With the trusty LT40 I can reach and grab and bail you out of virtually any bind short of some part of the plane dragging the ground... With a scale aerobatic plane noway Jose, not unless you were a millionaire and had a couple of spares just like it that we could use after you destroyed the 1st one or put me into an unrecoverable pinch where it looks like I crashed your plane..


And as far as landings,,, no comparison. Trainers are cake,, scale planes are cake for experienced pilots,, but I can almost guarantee you that a relative new pilot trying to land an Edge,,, or god forbid a Giles 202 is going to tipstall it sooner or later.

trainers are really the ideal planes to learn to fly on, but i dont understand why they have such small control surfaces. that just makes it harder to control on landing really.
you may be suprised to know that .40 size funflys with lots of expo and rates turned down don't make bad learning to fly planes. some people may jump on me for this, but due to lack of an equipped trainer, i managed to teach some4 of my cousins, and an uncle to fly rc on my twist .40. granted it was tough for them to get the hang of it at first, but they cought on pretty quick. DONT TRY THAT WITHOUT A BUDDY BOX! with a plane like that you cant afford to swap tx'es.

I agree spaceclam, I think my U CAN DO (funfly) is/was as easy to fly as a trainer. Especially with a prop that is for 3D, they tend to help slow the plane WAAAY down and the wingloading is so low on a Flip, U Can Do,,,, those sorts of planes that although they will stall, it is real difficult to do so. Keep that nose level to slightly down all the way to the ground and they will fly to almost a complete stop. Touch and Goes with a UCANDO is my favorite, that and an LT 40..

Thanks for the positive replies from the above that took their time to help me take another stride in getting to be a good pilot. Special thanks to MinnFlyer that always has a polished way of getting understood. BuBBa and BigNed your input make a TON of sense without talking DOWN to people. .. The point that SPACECLAM came up with probable said it best, that. a 4* with a buddy-box and the throws set down to moderate SEEMS TO ME a "go where you point it and land it" kind of plane. For heaven sake I was not suggesting I could actual FLY a Cap or Edge as a GREEN, Newbee, but after getting some stick time (ONLY with the help of guys like you) I do believe that I would be better suited to take it to next level (s) without having to keep changing planes and only a few "YOU GOT-IT..YOU-GOT-IT ? thrown in. You would need to keep the set-up simple , the CG more forward and so on as you've all said but it just comes down to the individual your teaching. I have taught guitar to many students and the worst thing for a begginer to do is to have them start out on a TOY guitar that is just too HARD to play. Letting them learn on one of my instruments and seeing the resulting smiles from making music rather than noise, is the example I was going for in this post. The next level of ARF Trainers seem to excellant and hopefully the "E" Power crowd will expand into the Nitro crowd and we could all benefit from their numbers in helping us keep our fields!

Lastly, I have been using RCU for a couple of years and I have to acknowledge all those that share information ( MinnFlyer your build posts and pictures are great!) in a supportive and sincere tone. To everyone that has answered a Newbee question, added their insight or tips on a better way to do somthing, or just give helpful reference information, I thank you.

Criticism seperates teachers from being heard!

Just a quick note after the fact... I kinda LIKE "floaters". Nice and relaxing!

Well...I've been flying for about 2 years now.

I fly at least 3-4 days a week usually and haul my planes out to the field with a trailer so I'm not the "average" person who has flown 2 years...

Anyway I never liked a trainer, about 6 months after i soloed I tried flying someone elses trainer (by then I was into 1/4 scale aerobatics) and it was a pain in the butt to fly again. I like a plane that will start to loose altitude (not dive just loose it) when the throttle is brought back. Trainers have the knack of just slowing down...slowing down...slowing down and then you push them over to loose altitude and they gain airspeed and gain more lift - bad cirlcle.

To me the self righting etc... of a trainer was the biggest pain when trying to learn how to fly. I got rid of those and got into more scale aerobatic planes - edges/extras and caps that go where I point them.

I taught a friend how to fly this summer, he learned from day one on my Gene Soucy Extra 300 1/4 scale with an OS 1.60 that I don't fly anymore. He never had a problem with it at all and now can do amazing things with it. I think it depends on the person, how fast they react and how fast they can absorb things in relation to the speed of the model. I think instructors make a big mistake with the whole - push the stick this way if X wing drops or the "look over the shoulder" technique. To me this invite disaster. I always tell my students when learning the best way to learn how to get out of stuff is to know what you did to get into it. I like them to pretend they are inside flying the plane, you make a left bank, it will take a right bank to get out of it etc...You can learn to react later to the plane - which you really only ever need to do in a violent tubmle manavuer when your not exactly sure when you'll run out of energy and what attitude the plane is in - other than that I can't think of another time in flying when you won't know how to right the plane or get it to do what you want.

But to each his own and what makes you comfortable, some people might get too nervous learning on a $1000 1/4 scale plane - some won't. I was never a fan of crash/buy/crash way of learning. In my 2 years I've crashed one plane, when the fuel tubing came off my saito .72 on my extreme flight edge while in a knife edge hover in 15 mph wind - looked great till the engine died and the wingtip hit first while going backwards from the wind.

Oh just to add. If you want to train on a trainer more power to you.

I put most accidents in the "second" plane category on the instructor who isnt there rather than the pilot. A lot of instructors are great at teaching a person to fly a trainer. A lot (not all) leave it at that. You need that same person or another qualified instructor when you move to the next plane like a 4*60 for the first flight or 3. Same thing if you move from say a 4* to something hot like an extra or a CAP because they're totally different on the controls.

The person at our field who trains 90% of our pilots can only fly a trainer, I've never seen him do a loop or a roll. If handed the controls of a 4* I'm confident it would end in disaster. He just teaches people enough to take off, do a pattern, and land. Which to me is really doing a dis-service to students. He teaches them just enough to get them in trouble.

I disagree, just because it's different doesn't make it more difficult. An extra/edge/cap that is properly set up lands itself much more so than a trainer ever will.

Just because you have to keep the throttle to a point where the plane continues to fly doens't make it more difficult - just different. I've seen many students struggle with a trainer do to the plane wanting to float on a calm day - and pushing a plane over to get it down on landing is a bad habit that will rear it's ugly head if the student ever progresses past trainers.

Once properly set up a plane with aerobatic ability is a joy to land. Point it into the wind, keep just enough power to keep it from falling out out of the sky and it will have a slow gentle descent and all that is required is to cut the power the last 1 foot and watch the most beuatiful landings ever.

I'd say it's much easier to get it lined up and keep the power up and cut on the runway and much quicker to learn, than knowing that you have to X feet high on the downwind and knowing where to cut the power before you even turn base.

Just a matter of opinion, but I never understood learning to fly on a plane that doesn't fly like any other plane your likely to fly after that. It only teaches bad habits, like stick banging etc...

Bob, I am like you a fast learner who moved on quickly.

Only thing is would disagree with is that a trainer is easier to land guy. Scale planes have stall tendencies that trainers do not. You can practically stop a trainer and it wont stall, an extra 330 will stall in a heartbeat and roll 500' if you let it, that can be unnecessary overlaod for a trainee to deal with when all he is really trying to do initially is get the plane down in one piece, not grease in a perfect landing on his 1st try.. With a scale plane you have to have a better understanding of descent rates and approach speeds AND stall tendencies, trainers dont ever really stall, the others will in a heartbeat... A scale aerobat as you said requires more touch to ensure a good landing.. It is easy ONCE YOU GET THE HANG OF IT. But a trainer is much simpler to get the hang of because it likes to fly up right where a scale plane like to fly in any attitude and wont right itself. Now granted a sharp fast learning guy who catches on fast can learn no problem,, I have taught quite a few guys to fly of ALL ages and there has not been one of them that could have handled my Edge on one of their 1st 10 flights on the buddy box without getting in severe trouble.

Also as far as teaching methods it comes down to whatever works to get a guy to competantly solo. There are a lot of tricks to help a trainee get his orientation straight especially on incoming or inverted planes. Whatever works. Point is as you know that after a few hundred or THOUSAND flights control becomes intuitive, you dont even think about what your hands are doing on the sticks. Like driving a car. At least I dont. I just look at the plane and my brain moves the sticks without me even thinking about it.

One of the most difficult things to do is learn to fly the rudder when the planes is inverted or straight over your head... A friend in pattern told me a trick about envisioning my left thumb in the inside wingtip and just push that wingtip forward and back with my rudder thumb,,, and it WORKED! But now that my brain has it,, once again I dont think, I just do it. I can control the rudder no matter where the plane is in space without even thinking about it. Frankly it surprises me, sometimes a new guy will ask me, "what are you looking at to correct for rudder in X situation?", I cannot remember what I do and I have to really think about it to remember what I did. It just happens eventually if you practice enough. The trick is to find any way you can to get them to the point where there intuition can take over.

Mike

The trainer plane does not teach bad habits such as "stick banging". If a student develops such a habit it's either the fault of the instructor, for poor teaching, or the student, for poor learning. When I learned, my instructor, masters pattern flier, drilled smooth stick movements into me really early. Of course I already knew this this from racing R/C boats, but he made sure to emphasize it anyway.

I learnt to fly like 20 yrs ago and then started again this year. I bought a trainer and I sold it after 2 flights, I felt miserable. I am not saying you can skip a trainer ok. I learnt with planes like the Magic Extra and it was ok. I moved fast to aerobatic planes etc.

Recently, I got myself a student. I built him a Ready 2 and I tried flying it, it was so hard to fly! The response is so darn slow and I was like dying. This student had flown the RCM Trainer for a short while before crashing it. I got the Ready 2 trimmed for him nice and all. He tried to fly it and said he has difficulty with this plane compared with the RCM Trainer. I switched the rates to LOW and he was ok.

We need to start with something easy, a newbies response rate and ability to fly naturally is not there, a trainer is a must. I did however meet a guy who learnt to fly on his own, started with a heli and then only a plane. He used the G2 a lot, somehow I did not like the G2. His first plane was the Kyosho F16, he was ok on it but then after like 3-4 flights he went to a trainer! This guys is talented and he did have to go back to a trainer.

In short ... I hate flying trainers!!!

I don't like flying trainers around in circles either, but I enjoy drifting one along inverted just above the runway & just above stall speed. I also like flying trainers in a good number of maneuvers that trainers "can't" do. But that is really irrelevant, it is just my likes & dislikes. The initial post was "Do we have to learn on floaters"? The very broad answer is YES, because the huge majority of novices just don't have the skills to fly anything else. Floating comes with the territory. Some pilots will never be very skilled, just good basic fliers, & well flown trainer types give them a good ride in the sky. Others will quickly move on the something else, but flying floaters is not just going in circles -- there are a ton of skills to lean from these planes & those who quickly move to something else, after mastering circles & bumps, are skipping a real step in the learning process. The ability to fly these kites in challenging evolutions is a usefull skill to have, regardless of your state of flying development. You don't have to like it, & you don't have to stay with it-- but you had better be able to do it, or there is a significant hole in your ability spectrum. There is also a lot of genuine flying fun that you will otherwise miss.

Don't forget, trainer are good for a lot of fun fly events. We just did one that required trainer only and the removal of the wing and then 10 laps on a oval created with cones on the runway.

Funny as all heck.