Just need some concensus from some of the more experienced flyers who frequent this forum. I`ve been asked on a number of occaisons about trainers and what`s a good one for someone with NO flight experience. I learned on an Avistar with a 46. Still fly it and like it a lot, but did take a while to solo. Sometimes wonder if I would have soloed quicker with a flat bottom wing on a more docile bird. Don`t want to set someone up for failure/slow progress by recommending the Avistar if the concesus is " don`t ". Thanks

There is no simple answer, as new pilot aptitudes and inherent abilities are wildly variable. Some folks could learn to fly in a few days on a pattern plane, while others take two or three years flying standard trainers.

IMO, as a primary trainer, the Avistar is a hot ship. While, it can be desensitized substantially & will do the job for a broad spectrum of students, it is not for everybody.

Those who can live with it until the survival mode has passed, have a wonderfully responsive and adaptable airplane that should stay in their hangars forever.

Those who struggle a bit can look forward to the Avistar as a super second airplane -- again, one that should always be retained for future use.

I have a friend who soloed on an old Air Vista (Hobbico I think) with only 5 flights under his belt. I have another friend who is struggling on a Dynaflite Butterfly. Different strokes for different fokes. I believe there are students who can handle the "hotter" trainers with ease and some who will struggle to fly even a slow docile trainer. The tough part is you never know someones flying skills until they try there hands at flying. If it were possible I would have every newcomer to this hobby fly a typical 4 channel trainer (w/instructor) 3 times. If they are starting to get the hang of it you will know by the end of the 3rd lesson. If they are still struggling then they may need a tamer trainer. (ie Sig Kadet Senior, Dynaflite Butterfly) As always, just my opinion.

I learned on an Avistar with no prior flight experience and did pretty well. And I still enjoy flying it after a season. I think wether it should be a primary trainer has a lot to do with the individual. I would not recommend it for a younger person with no R/C experience. If you have experience with cars/boats/etc, then you can probably start with the Avistar. If you understand the dynamics of flight, then you can probably start with the Avistar. If you have a good relationship with a competant instructor, then you can probably start with the Avistar. If you can't figure out where the fuel goes, then you should probably start simpler. All in all, it is a very good airplane and will grow with a beginner well beyond the solo point.

I often recommend the Avistar. Sure, with that semi-symmetrical wing, it is a tad bit hotter than most trainers. But it is actually easier to fly and land in windy conditions. And the plane has much more to offer the beginner after they solo. It may have taken you longer to solo, but maybe not. Often beginners are grounded do to wind. Light trainers are a real handful in a stiff breeze or even worse when it is gusty. You may have been able to train on days that others could not. And now, you have a plane that will take you to the next plateau. Training, learning, is like a series of steps, or plateaus. You go along and go along and it seems you are just maintaining. But then one day you make a break through or things just start to feel right and suddenly you realize how much you have excelled. And you will experience that many times over. The Avistar offer more "steps" as it is a much more capable trainer.

I started on a Northwest Aerodynamics .40 trainer with a flat bottom airfoil. After I crashed it due to an instructor's inattention, I built a Sig Kavalier. This is the plane I soloed on. I found it MUCH easier to land, especially in wind. The semi-symmetrical airfoil allowed better penetration and less ballooning.

Which is better? To each their own, as they say. Planes like the Goldberg Eagle or Great Planes PT 40 are VERY gentle, slow-flying planes that are excellent trainers. A plane like the Avistar is faster and less forgiving, but it penetrates better, doesn't balloon as much, and isn't affected by the wind as much. Both types have their good and bad points.

Ya pays ya muny an' ya takes yer cherce.

Dr.1

Here's an answer that works. If they bought an Avistar, tell them they've made a wise choice. (Same answer, if they bought a high wing trainer, or a P51 pts, or a slow stick, or anything suitable for training.)

If the person asking the question has not made a purchase, get them on the club trainer and see how they handle the buddy box. For a natural, the Avistar is a good recommendation. If they can't tell right from left after the first few flights, an Avistar won't work to their advantage.

If they haven't made a purchase, and there's no club trainer to evaluate 'em with... the safe recommendation is a high-wing, flat-bottom trike gear trainer. Or a slow stick, if that's where they're leaning.

Most of these recommendations are made from hindsight, and that's the best we can offer. Good luck,
Dave Olson

Without starting a dogfight, semi-sym (or sym) airfoils don't penetrate any better than flat bottomed airfoils, nor are they faster. Penetration is a function of drag vs available power. The Avistar is relatively small compared to the majority of 40-size trainers & is also a bit cleaner due to its lower cabin height -- its better penetration stems from that.

It has less dihedral than most trainers, which makes its ground handling a lot easier in cross winds. This also helps in flight, to some extent, when there are gusty winds.

The higher aspect, semi-sym wing, plus near shoulder-wing configuration and relatively light weight result in an altogether faster and more agile aircraft than a standard trainer. The speed is easily controlled by the throttle, but the inherent agility is always hiding in there to catch an unwary or underskilled student. Compared to a standard trainer, things happen much faster with an Avistar -- both good things and bad things.

I like it a lot, but if we are speaking in generalities, it wouldn't be my first choice for an unknown student.

Thanks a lot guys, I really appreciate all the input. I guess in reality a lot of it does boil down to the individual student. Having said that, IN GENERAL, I get the impression that the Avistar may not be the best choice for a complete newbie. Also having said that, I personally think the Avistar is a great model and an RC classic. I hope to be flying mine for a long time.

Without starting a dogfight, semi-sym (or sym) airfoils don't penetrate any better than flat bottomed airfoils, nor are they faster. Penetration is a function of drag vs available power. The Avistar is relatively small compared to the majority of 40-size trainers & is also a bit cleaner due to its lower cabin height -- its better penetration stems from that.

I never said the Avistar was faster or penetrated better due to the airfoil alone. I simply stated it is a faster plane.

A flat bottom airfoil balloons more easily. When this happens, the AOA tends to increase, thereby increasing drag, which lessens penetrating ability; as you state.

Also, which wing typically has more drag? Flat bottomed or semi-symmetyrical?

Dr.1

That's right, Tide. A plane with a flat bottom airfoil will typically make a better trainer than one with a semi-symmetrical airfoil.

Dr.1

Both semi-sym & sym typically have more drag than a flat bottomed airfoil.

In order to generate the equivalent lift of a flat bottomed airfoil of the same thickness, aspect ratio and area, the semi & fully sym airfoils must operate at a higher AOA, resulting in more induced drag.

The fighters of WW II typically had flat bottomed airfoils. They had an absolute need for speed & agility.

It is also worth noting that all-out aerobatic models employ thick fully sym wings, not only for all-around agility, but also to slow them down in the down lines.


A flat bottomed airfoil also doesn't necessarily balloon any more than either one of the sym types. In level flight, all three must develop the same amount of lift to support the same weight. The Flat bottomed airfoil will be flying at a near zero AOA, while the semi & sym types will be flying at a higher AOA. The initial gust response will actually favour the flat bottomed airfoil, but not very noticeably. However, it is possible that the flat bottomed type will decelerate a bit more slowly & thus retain gust-induced excess lift a little longer, but again not to a particularly noticeable degree.

In cases of flight with all three wings at a perceptible positive AOA, gust response is slightly different. The flat bottomed & semi-sym types tend to pitch up more strongly (the semi-sym a bit less) relative to the fully sym wing.

I suspect that you are being mislead by the way that these wing types are typically employed. Flat bottomed airfoils are typically employed in low wing-loading, high dihedral, large area applications, while sym & semi-sym types are usually employed in higher performance models and typically have higher wing loadings and lower dihedral angles. These types may be faster and will certainly be more resistant to gust perturbations -- but it ain't necessarily the wing.


The real advantage of flat bottomed wings for trainers is their greater lift capability. Although they are no more stable, they allow lower take-off/landing speeds and a greater maneuver margin to accommodate inadvertant control inputs.

I learned how to fly on a Avistar RTF w/ OS .40 LA. It took me 3 months of Sundays during the summer of 2004 to solo...now, my friend, Sun_Kissed_Girl was learning how to fly on it, but she had to fly it at 50% rates (A while ago, I took out the 4VF and put in a 7CAP), otherwise it was too much. Then, I won a Nexstar RTF at a raffle and gave it to her (because I now fly 60 size sport planes), and it she said it flies much better, even at full rates. I flew it, and they are waaaaay sloooooow . Brought it in for landing, and I could causually walk faster than it was flying in! I can now fly better than people that have been at this for 15+ years, and SKG is on her way to soloing.

Well, theres my life story on flying, so, I do think the Avistar is a litte hot to learn on (was for me!), but its not that much of a significant difference (after flying the Avistar, Nexstar, and a Xtra Easy II)

Actually trained on a nexstar but had a hard time soloing after my instructors opinion bought a tiger 2 and learned monre quickly and easily

TideFlyer....for our club the Avistar is the suggested trainer for many reasons. Too hot? Not if it's propped correctly (11x5 APC) seems to be a sweet spot for the plane & a .46....also throttle usage needs to be taught from the first flight. Too many pilots want to operate at full speed and that's not good because speed makes the controls too responsive relatively speaking. The 11x5 prop works well too for landing...provides some braking.

I still have an Avistar and love it. I modified it to have a bolt on wing with no dihedral and converted it to a tail dragger. It will do 90% of all the advanced maneuvers especially with the controls cranked up a bit excepting the rudder....it seems to over power the other controls (by this i mean max rudder does not balance with max everything else).......nice part about this plane is that you can go from beginner all the way to a very high level of skill and do so while staying within a budget.

Hi again TideFlyer. I also see you on my post Avistar w/.40 LA ?? Everyone has been thoughtful with information. I have kind of boiled my choices down to a compromise between economics and performance. I think Misses Wifey Santa-Poo (lol ) will only deliver one r/c package under our tree, therefore, I must make it count. After Listening to all of you guys and considering that I have been flying my Superstar EP 3 channel both with an instructor (2 times) with no buddy system, and quite a few times on my own, that I may be able to fly the Avistar RTF with the buddy system and an instructor. I am getting better w/3 channel Superstar, But I hand launch from a soccer field. This is not to good for learning take-offs. I have had five crashes (all fixable). Outside of some firewall and wing/ nose balsa work and my third E-motor, (they are $10.00 each) it is still flying. An instructor trimmed it for me and now it flys good. The Avistar RTF sure comes under my radar with the $279.00 price tag and (I think) a $25.00 gift certificate from Tower. It is hard to argue the price and the set-up. I just hope the landings with the Avistar are not TOO hot. Take care all. Mike

Mike, with an instructor, I don`t think you`ll have any real difficulty with the Avi. It has a pretty deliberate sink rate on final approach and really doesn`t have much of a tendency to balloon at all on landing even if carrying a fair amount of airspeed. You`ll quickly discover when to go to idle on approach so that you won`t be carrying too much speed. I`d bet sooner rather than later you`ll have a good 46 on that bird to replace the 40. You`re gonna` love it!!

ROLL TIDE

Hey, TideFlyer...I'm in South Austin at Hill Country. Pick a day and you can try mine. The club I was at would put a newbie on the club trainer for 3-5 flights and then recommend an airplane (if they didn't already have one). The club ship was a .60, which made it a little easier to see. About 90% of the recommendations were for Avistars. I stole the MDS .48 I had on it to use on a Stik, but the trusty old OS .40 FP is back on the nose and she's ready to go.