Pecos45

What are the best trainers out there today? I flew a LITTLE RC 20 years ago with a Fledgling and OS Max 40, 4 ch radio. I have 23,000+ hrs in the real planes and very healthy respect for RC. I've been humbled before. Anyhow, the bug has bitten again and I'm wanting to get back into the sky. Your suggestions appreciated. I'm thinking a good kit or ARF. High wing. Trike gear. 3-4 channel.

Be kind to newbys and you'll have good karma for the rest of the day.

-pkh-

My Feedback: (2)

I like the Hobbico Avistar ARF. With just a little bit of dihedral and a semi-symmetric airfoil, it is easy to fly like a trainer, but lets you get a little more aerobatic with it. If you put an OS .46 AX or an OS .50 SX in it (that's what I had) it will keep you entertained for awhile!

britbrat

Agree

Pecos45

Thanks guys, I'll check that one out. I've also been looking at a PT-40. I note the landing gear looks like junk on all the trainers. Anyone have any suggestions for easy replacement gear?

-pkh-

My Feedback: (2)

I'd just fly with the gear that comes with your kit, personally. If you bend/bust the gear up beyond repair, then put some other gear on it, or make it a tail dragger. I've not seen any better nose gear than what came with the Avistar ARF... the rear "wire" gear could be replaced with some better/stiffer gear. I bounced alot at first with the stock wire gear because I landed pretty hard... stiffer rear gear would help reduce bouncing, but it's best to learn not to land so hard!

Montague

The Hanger 9 Alpha and the Hobico Superstar are my picks for best all around handling trainers out there.

The Sig LT-40 is probibly the easiest to fly trainer.

The PT-40 is an excelent trainer, but I haven't flown one in years. Before the Alpha and Superstar came out, it would probibly have been my first choice.

Given your full scale experience, if you spend some time on an RC simulator, and work with an instructor for a few flights, and have naturally decent hand-eye coordination, you might even be able to actually skip a basic trainer. (I've had a couple of students who were in that category, but only a couple).

Something like the Avistar or Arrow are slightly more acrobatic than the other trainers I mentioned, which might or might not be a good thing.

If you have the extra cash, look at a .60 size trainer, they fly a bit better all around.

Don't sweat the landing gear. The gear that comes with the trainers I've mentioned (and most others) is generally good enough for the job. You want gear that bends and flexes rather than tearing out the bottom of the fuse, after all. The stresses from a botched landing have to go somewhere, and it's generally better for it to go in bending the music wire than in to the fuse structure.

Campy

My Feedback: (1)

Welcome back to the insanity........I mean hobby

There are many very good trainers out there. Most of them fly pretty much the same these days.

For a 40 size trainer you can't go wrong with the SIG LT-40. I learned on the Hobbico SuperStar and feel that is a great trainer also. Be prepared for all kinds of suggestions on this one. It is like asking which is better, Ford or Chevvy.

Since "The Bug" has bitten again, I will make a few suggestions.

Since you will be best served by having an instructor, check out your local club and/or flying field. Your LHS (Local Hobby Shop ) should be able to provide you with some contacts.

1. I usually suggest an ARF to a newbie (beginner) since there is no chance of accidently building in a warp and the emotional attachment to your "labor of love" is a lot less. Many people forget that a trainer is to learn on and you should expect it to get beat up some in the process.

2. Get a USER FRIENDLY ball bearing 46 engine. By user friendly I mean that 99% will run great right out of the box. OS AX, Thunder Tiger Pro and Evolution engines are very good and I can highly recommend them. Any of these engines will be VERY usable in a 2nd, 3rd (or later) plane. There are many very good engines out there, however many of them require a fair amount of "fiddeling with" to get to run properly. Just starting out I would suggest staying with a 2 stroke engine.

3. Get a 6 channel (or more ) COMPUTER radio. Many fliers, by their 3rd or 4th plane want to have flaps and/or retracts. Getting the 6 channel initially saves buying another radio. You will not be using most of the functions initially, however you will quickly "grow" into them. When you talk to the club I also suggest finding out which brand of radio is primarily used in your area and which are the LEAST USED channels at the flying field. Then get that brand of radio on one of the least used channels. This will minimize your waiting time for the channel to clear so you can fly and while manuals for the radio are good, a real person with knowledge/experience of your brand is better. In the Futaba line, the 6EXA is a relatively inexpensive 6 channel entry level computer radio. I am not familiar with JR, HiTec or AirTronics so I can not make any suggestions for them - I am certain others can fill in the blanks on these.

4. Stay away from the RTF packages. The radio is usually a base level 4 channel radio and the engine is usually a bushed bearing 40 engine. The power of a bushed 40 ranges from marginal to OK for a trainer, but the engine is almost never usable for a second plane due to lack of power. By doing some careful shopping you can usually come within a reasonable distance of most RTFs and a lot less than some of the RTFs out there.

5. I will repeat this again, find a local club and get an instructor. The typical 1st flight of someone trying to teach themselves how to fly is about 30 seconds and normally results in damage to the plane/equipment. A simulator is very helpful, but IT WILL NOT TEACH YOU HOW TO FLY. FMS is a free D/L that uses your transmitter and a cord from the buddy box port to the serial port on the computer. It is a pretty good sim, especially for the price.

I don't mean this as a put down, but your full scale experience is going to have little bearing on your ability to fly RC. Your perspectives are all going to be completely different - you are outside the plane operating from a fixed point, there is no tactile feedback from the plane, reaction times of the plane are going to a lot faster than you realize, you need to totally rely on what your eyes tell you, etc., etc..

I hope these suggestions help.

Pilot Chad

My Feedback: (4)

The nexstar is also a good plane, it comes with simulator if you get the package. I have the superstart and would have gottent he nextstar if i had the money

jagnweiner

My Feedback: (1)

I would agree with basically everything said above. You can't go wrong with most of the balsa trainers out there today. I wouldn't, however, try to skip using a trainer and go straight to a "second" type plane. I don't think Montague was so much suggesting that as just throwing it out there as a possibility.

I got back into flying last spring after, like you, being out of the hobby for over 15 years. I had only flown a little bit when I was younger and never really got proficient. I bought a used Sig Kadet Mk II and learned in a few buddy box sessions. Although it didn't take long to solo, I was still glad I was flying a trainer rather than something a little more advanced. It allowed me to be completely relaxed and experiment with the trainer. I flew the trainer constantly for most of the summer until I moved to a Cub that I built from a kit. There is a lot you can do with a trainer. Once you learn to fly your trainer inverted for complete circuits around the field, aerobatics seem a lot easier on any other plane.

Good luck and have fun!
-Scott

bruce88123

Pecos45,
I have had several students in the past year flying the ALPHA series with great success. It also comes in 60 size which is a little easier to see if you don't mind burning extra fuel. You can swap in one of the flat metal (bent) main landing gears if you feel the need or have a rough field. As the others have said, many excellent trainers out there these days to choose from.
1. Find a club.
2. Find a good instructor with buddy box.
3. Listen , listen, listen to him.
With 23,000 hrs you understand what makes airplanes work but you already know it is different when you aren't IN the cockpit.
Enjoy,
Bruce

Balsa Master

i like the kadet kits made by sig, good construction and they teach you to build the plane (you tend to crash less if you build it... somthing about spending antoher 50 hours unkitting the unkitted kit just isnt apealing now is it?)

Pecos45

Great suggestions from all! I hope other newbies will take time to read this thread.

I have no illusions what my flying time in the full size aircraft is worth. Trust me. If I could cash it in at the local hobby shop, I might get .50 cents worth of merchandise. I KNOW what flying is supposed to look like and can understand what the plane is doing or trying to tell me......but staying oriented in all attitudes, giving up all sensations of "feel" and then translating my thoughts into good responses via a remote radio.....well. It's just not the same is it? I used to sleep and read flying the real thing but flying RC I am afraid to blink my eyes. [:-]

I have already learned.......thanks to all of you:

That I want a 6 channel radio.
That I won't get any engine that isn't ball bearing.
80% sure I'll go with a .60 engine.
I'll ignore the jicky wire landing gear...for now.
And I think I'll get a simulator program. Played with one at the hobby shop (real flight, I think) and it was pretty good. I think it would help and although no substitute for the real thing...it definately gets your mind to thinking like it needs to work with a real RC. All in all, probably a pretty cheap insurance policy. It wouldn't have to prevent very many crashes to have paid for itself.

My old Fledgling that I flew with the OS 40 would run like a bat out of hell and had more power than I knew what to do with at that time. When I let the big kids fly my plane, they could do some wild stuff with the 40 easily.

However, it occurs to me that the same rational for getting a 6 ch. radio applies to a .60 engine. Most of the big kids back then had the .60 engines. Certainly this engine would open up new horizons in future planes. Getting a .60 now could save buying a second engine later........assuming it survives my training. [X(]

bryris

This is true. However, being a pilot myself, and living the newbie buddybox experience right now, there is no doubt in my mnd that it helps. However, it doesn't help with all the things mentioned above....so I am not disputing that line.

However, flying full scale gives you a deep knowledge of what makes an airplane fly. The torque effects of the motor and associated other left turning tendencies, the physics behind needed speed and associated angle of attack (this includes stalling), the effects of using flaps, understanding of load factors (not too important on aerobatic planes), yadda yadda yadda.

I have only 5 flights on my LT-40, with zero simulator time and everyone at the field is telling me that I am a natural and that I am doing things that take most people much longer to learn. Makes me feel good. But, I really believe that my full scale experience has filled in the gap of knowing what is going on up there, even though I am still having to train my thumbs and eyes to a new gig.

rickygsg

nextstar- if not then rcm trainer 40 with a os 46 ax

Pecos45

Bry - I agree that real flight experience can give an RC Pilot a big advantage in many departments of the KNOWLEDGE base and I'm sure that this experience will kick in from time to time to help a new RC Pilot learn CERTAIN things more quickly and hopefully easier.

But I can see a danger here that it can also lead some pilots to over confidence and complasency. I did a bit of flight instructing in my time as well and the most dangerous pilots were the ones between 200 & 1,000 hours. I don't know what this translates to in RC time but a pilot can reach a point where he is good and KNOWS he's good and at that moment he becomes dangerous. Being "good" never means we can't be had by the overlooked or unexpected.

Certainly I don't mean any of this as a put down. I'm sure you are well on your way to becoming a fine RC pilot but something every RC jock needs to remember is the ground is only about 2 seconds away. In the world of real planes, that's one terror we rarely have to ever deal with.

Good flying! j

J3FAN

SINCE YOU POST THAT you are considering a .60size engine
I recommend the RIGHT FLYER sold by HOBBY PEOPLE for $ 139 dollars
They are so good that I have purchased 4, on behalf of my students who, like
yourself returned to the hobby.
I kept two RIGHT FLYERS and my choice for the engine is the MAGNUM .80FS
but the second one does have a .60 size
With the model you get a 75" SEMI SYMMETRICAL wing and ALL the hardware
is usable. In fact, the TANK is the very best I have ever seen
HINTS : reinforce the wood engine bearers with brass plate top and bottom
the FLYING of this model is the best, you can move way past the first stages
and still LEARN more advance stuff.

I highly recommend it.
here's a picture of the plane, with the GLIDER CARRIER on top.

ADDENDUM : being a Pilot of full size a/c helps very little to learn R/C flying.... BUT
the other way around ( R/C to full size) DOES HELP.
Having flown R/C since age 17....in the year 1974 I got my Private in 46 hours TOTAL. Both the instructor AND the FAA INSPECTOR remarked that the R/C experience must have been very instrumental in understanding/applying flight in a full size a/c.....passed the first time, too

bryris

Thanks for your view. I have seen that this subject is a touchy one. However, I have a pretty level head on my shoulders. The other thing is that I built my trainer from a kit and I have about 130 hours or so of build time in on it. Also, being a college student, it was the next best thing from a miracle for me to have somehow scraped up enough money to purchase a plane, radio, electronics, club membership, AMA membership, etc that is required to actually begin leanring to fly these things.

My full scale knowledge is of benefit to me. Since this is a touchy subject, I do not advertise my full-scale experience to anyone at my field. I actually, refrain from telling people, because I do not want that to become a part of my learning R/C. I am a beginner to R/C all the way and would rather be instructed from the ground up than any other way. Any help that my full-scale experience gives me, is a personal thing, for me to enjoy.....not to bloat and gloat to other fliers.

-pkh-

My Feedback: (2)

I'm a little surprised that some of you guys think being a full scale pilot helps much when learning to fly RC planes. There are a number of guys in my club that are full scale pilots... some general aviation, a couple fly for airlines. Many of them said they found learning to fly RC planes harder than learning to fly the real thing, mainly because of the changing control perspective of an RC plane (i.e flying away from you, towards you, overhead, inverted, etc.). A couple of them have even been buddy-boxing much longer than I did with just some RC heli and simulated plane experience. With every RC vehicle I've tried, the most difficult part to learn was the control perspective, which is something that can only be learned with actual or simulated RC experience. Some of the best RC pilots at my club have no full scale experience... although one guy that's extremely good (even qualified to be a trainer for turbines) is an airline pilot... I always have a blast watching him fly!

BTW... if you're set on a .60 sized trainer, the Global Right Flyer (mentioned above) and the Hobbico Hobbistar both have semi-symmetric airfoils, which will keep flying interesting longer than the flat-bottomed trainers will.

Pecos45

BRS - Your attitude and mine I think are on the same page exactly. You see your actual flight experience exactly for what it is. Years ago when I started dabbling in RC, I had the interesting perspective of having a couple of RC pilots as STUDENT pilots for me at the airport. We spent endless hours talking flying the real stuff in relation to flying RC. It didn't take me long to understand the difference. Flying RC is a better help for the real planes than vice versa. It was mostly a spatial orientation thing with me. So long as I could keep my plane straight in my head, I could do fine and I was so terrified of becoming disoriented with it that I never really had a problem here. But again, my experience was limited. Certainly if I'd pursued it longer I would have gotten lost as Hogan's goat, I'm sure.

Anyway, I think you'll go far BRS. Good luck.

----------------------------
PK - Bry and I are both far from claiming any significant advantage from actual pilot experience. Bry has stated he doesn't even mention it and Lord knows I won't throw it around either. It's surely nothing to "brag about" at an RC field. And any "real time" pilot who thinks he's going to automatically step into RC and dazzle anyone is in for a RUDE awakening for sure.

We both come to the sport heads bowed in humility, trust me. But any sort of flying is relevent to some degree. A stall is a stall. A crosswind is a crosswind and every plane will react the same. Structural failure is caused by the same forces, etc. The trick is to perhaps apply the knowledge and convert it to the scale involved.

Not to worry about us thinking otherwise. Thanks for your comments!

rb4123

I would reccommend the Tower Trainer series just because they are pretty cost efficient (sounds kinda smart huh). Plus thats what I learned on, so I'm kinda partial.

FrogTwat

World star 40 ..... brilliant little plane stable and you can fly inverted tricks with it too !!!!

Safebet

My Feedback: (12)

I fly Hangar 9 Alpha 60. Very stable airplane. Handles good in moderate wind. Comes with a .61 Evolution Ball Bearing Engine. I have two of the .61 Evolution engines, both have performed flawlessly, out of the box. Read the reviews on the Alpha 60.

For $374.00, I got the nicely finished ARF plane, (71.5" wingspan) a good JR Quattro 4-channel Tx, complete JR flight pack, RC simulation software, the cord to attach the TX with.

The 4 channel is a good radio to have, so that when you upgrade you can use it as a buddy box to train others. Easy assembly, very good quality. Covering was as wrinkle free as it gets.

Just another opinion. Good luck and welcome back.

ELTIGRE

any of the Tower trainers mentioned will work well. so will the Eagle II.there is generally NOTHING wrong with the plain bushed engines, or loop scavenged(the few that are left)porting. we flew for years that way. these are beginner motors and as such while they have less power they are easier to adjust & quite rugged in crashes, and much easier/cheaper to repair.you can always break in ball bearing/schnerle mills on your trainer for the #2 plane.

vegas mossie

I would suggest the easy sport 60. Very forgiving, and very fun. Let us know what you choose. Loren

SBR_RV

my dad is a full size instructor but when he flew for the first time he did a roll and a loop, but he cant fly when its coming towards him (at the moment) because he gets disorientated, but ofcourse understands how they fly. when i was new to RC he would tell me how to keep the rolls axil and stuff like that.