guys...need everyones thoughts in this...might be stupid but see if it can be agreed on

Being some one who learned to fly using a conventional trainer and having since flown high wing 3D planes such as the Magic, i have come to one conclusion....it would be much better for someone learn off from the start using one of this high winged 3D planes or sticks with small ammounts of throws ... they are easier to fly, have larger control surface, easier to land and once the newbie has learned to fly, he would't need to look for a 2nd plane...just increase the throws and it becomes a good 2nd plane to learn aerobatics (of course he can get other planes such as scales etc) but he wouldnt need an immeadiate 2nd plane to progress...
anyways i know trainers have some self recovery characteristic...but how much is it?

just my 2 cents....i could be entirely wrong but just a thought....

It's hard to overstate the importance of the self recovery aspect of trainers. In addition to allowing the plane to "sort of" right itself, the stability also allows the pilot to take occasional breaks while flying. These breaks give the beginning pilot time to relax and gather their thoughts. Aerobatic planes that are lacking this characteristic in general take greater concentration, and require that the pilot control the plane at all times. Some beginners can handle this just fine, and for them starting with such a plane could be a good thing. For other beginners, this could be a disaster. Since it's nearly impossible to tell how the student is going to do before actually flying, a standard trainer is the safest choice. So, you're not wrong, there's just many people that it would not work for.

I have a Midwest Aerobat which is stated to be a great second plane. It is a high-wing trainer "LOOKING" aircraft with an OS46ABX. Although this plane looks like a trainer, it is far from a trainer. Piper said it well, there is a big difference from a plane with no dihedral and one that has trainer like dihedral. The Aerobat does NOT give me time to recover as the trainer did when loosing focus or getting turned around during flight. Now, anything will work with the addition of a buddy box connection but that may not be possible if the radio is setup with end points, dual rates, and so on unless both radios are set up exactly the same. So, this is not a solution. Best way is for a beginner to use a basic setup with a buddy box and with a plane that allows recovery. The Aerobat, although it is a great flyer and I love it, won't do as a trainer very well.

I use Aerobat not the 3D you suggest because I am familiar with it and have flown it a lot since solo day last August. I also fly a Tiger 60, Four Star 40 and a Rapier Delta Wing. All different but none of them would do as a trainer even with minimum throws for minimal performance.

Stick with trainers for training and use the buddy box. You will get best results and minimum heart-break.

A 3D type plane with the throws turned all the way up flies gerat. A 3D plane with the throws turned down flies like crap. The aerodynamics of the wing and general airframe require large surfaces and extreme throws. Trainers are specifically designed to fly slowly and gently. They also self-correct to some extent. Walk before you run.

Dr.1

bikz,

I'm not sure why you feel you need everyone's thoughts, here. Are you instructing? Are you planning on becoming an instructor? It might help to know what you intend to do with the results of this survey.

If you are instructing now.... please let us know the results of this experiment.

If you are planning on doing instruction, are you planning on selecting only students with 3D intent? Or are you planning on making the recommendation across all disciplines?

It seems to me that a student who is intereted in scale warbirds and has no intent on doing 3D would be saddled with an unlikely trainer, and later with an unwanted 3D plane.

It seems to me that a student interested in gliders or slope soaring would be saddled with an overpowered, oversensitive trainer, later unused for any purpose.

I do instruction, and have found the conventional trainer useful to everyone, so far, including one student who moved on to 3D, and a current student who plans on electric power glider fun later on.

Good luck,
Dave Olson

I would agree on the trainer being for training. The superstar corrects amazingly. I could go into a dive and it would be level in 50 feet. Thats a big amount. I just think they are quit stable too. 3d planes are not made for hardlandings that can happen during training...

Chad,
When it says that a trainer wing has self leveling characteristics it means side to side. A with dihedral that banks into a turn with try to level itself. A plane put into a dive will continue in that attitude until the elevator causes it to level.

Ken

Ken,
Wierd, must have been something with my plane.

Chad,
If you put your plane into a dive and it levels out on it's own then your elevator was trimmed with some up elevator into it.

Ken

My trainer, a Sig Scamp, would tend to go back to level if placed into a dive and I let go of the sticks. It was because of the flat bottom. As it picked up speed, the wing would generate more lift, which would tend to make it level out. This is much less likely to happen on a semi-symmetrical wing. It would also tend to level itself out side to side. Needless to say, the transition to my second plane was interesting since it was more likely to go where it was pointed.

Piper,
Thanks. I do stand corrected about leveling in a dive. I was trying to point out that when people refer to "self-leveling" when talking about a trainer it is usually meant that it will level out when it's banked into a turn.

Ken

I find it interesting that when people (myself included) move on to second and third planes, they always thing that they are somehow majically easier to fly than a trainer. What people tend to forget after they flown for a while is how hard it was to learn the basics such as take off, landing, and everything in between. Sure, after you've mastered the basics, then you start to realize just how much a trainer fights control inputs. At first, though, that "fighting" is actually saving your butt! After a while, this becomes a nuissance, and a person moves onto a second, more "point and fly" model. Now, they are ready for point and fly, and this seems easier. Imagine trying to learn how to land a plane that comes in at over 30 mph. Now, I have a hard time slowing a plane down for a landing. I like landing them hot. You can't land a trainer hot--it will keep on flying.
To summarize--trainers only become "harder" to fly after you've mastered basic skills and the self-righting characteristics are actually fighting you and what you are asking the plane to do. After that point, a point and fly plane becomes much more desireable. Trainers are good for just that--training. There is a reason the military spent millions developing planes like T-6's and T-38's and so on--it is an important step that shouldn't be skipped.

Somehow I hope that comes out as a complete thought, and not just a bunch of rambling...

Ken and piper, thanks for clearing it up. You learn something new everyday. My V-Stik comes in tommrow, so i have all week to work on it. Should be an experience...


Yes, i am going to buddy box for a bit on it.

Chad, the reason your trainer pulls up from a dive is because as the plane moves faster, it developes more lift, therefore the nose comes up. This is one of the stability things built into a trainer, but it does not guarentee the plane will level at 50 feet like you said. If you have room, the plane will work at righting itself. If you don't, it will go splat just like anything else.

There are several things that determine whether or not a plane will self-recover from a "hands-off" dive & the flat bottomed wing is only one of them. My Superstar hot rods will dive forever, flat-bottomed wings notwithstanding. Trim, C-of-G location, incidence, relative positions of AC to C-of-G, & relative positions of center-of-drag & cente-of-lift are far more powerfull factors than the airfoil configuration.

Getting back to the second plane question -- standard trainers can be easily converted to highly capable aerobats, & hence, make excellent second planes. They can combine relaxed (relatively) flying capability with powerfull aerobatic capability in a package that looks deceptively like a trainer (until you pull its tail) & costs little to engineer.

Many times you will hear people say, "My Second plane was easier to fly than my trainer was".

This is true - but what they forget is that now, they KNOW how to fly!

It's getting over those first few stumbling blocks where a Trainer is needed.

nope i'm not instructing...but i have friends who ask me this and i was just trying to see if what i thought was right .....
but i know of guys who started off with sticks such as the Thunder Tiger Stick etc. and have moved on well...
anywayz thanks alot guys for all the input..i guess the trainer is the better choice ... i'll tell em all to get a trainer first..
cheers.

Dick I fly the Midwest Aerobat also and your comment about recovery got me to thinking about it. So when I was at the field today with 2 students, one with a Super Star and one with a Sig Kadet I decided to try a little experiment. I tried the recovery on both planes by putting them in odd positions and then letting go of the sticks and slow counted the recovery time. With each of them we counted about 8 counts to a safe recovery position. Then I did the same with the Aerobat and it's count came out 5-6 on all the checks. With the Aerobat I took it up and did a tumble and let go, it still counted 5, even releasing from knife edge it still counted 5-6. I did a lot with the Aerobat that I won't do with a students plane but with the results I got there is NO reason not to use the Aerobat for a trainer, I do it all the time but you got me to wondering about it. I don't mean to be insulting but if you need more time then it will give you, you might want to pay more attention to what you are getting yourself into. Granted this isn't a very technical way to check something but it was kind of fun and the students got a kick out of it so thanks for getting me to thinking about it.
ENJOY your Aerobat I ENJOY all of mine. ENJOY !!!!! RED

Hi Red.

Now that's interesting. No insult taken, just good input.

To tell you the truth, I never tried to do a 'self recovery' with the Aerobat, basically because it is not supposed to be a 'trainer' as such. But, I can see how it could be.. I do know it will do things that the trainer will not , plus it is a 'tad' faster. I had to prop mine down a bit because it scared me with it's flight speed (thus slower with the proper propellor, it does slow down and fly easier). That was when I first put it in the air. I now have a lot of fun with it doing all sorts of things, even things that no-one can describe like perhaps a stall turn that got turned around and resulted in a couple of spins while recovering.. ha.. ("always do that stuff two mistakes high", as I can hear my instructor saying).

Now that you have my interest, I will play with that this weekend.

I also fly the Tiger 60 which flys slower than the Aerobat but is really a capable yet easy to fly plane. (note, above discussion about trainers and second planes, the Tiger 60 is definitely a fun flying airplane because it is very forgiving and, at the same time, is capable).

Anyway, thanks for the input. I guess I got into the 'this ain't a trainer' mode with the Aerobat that I simply never treated it as one (caution flying vs. agressive I guess).

Dick.