I am a complete newbie. Which trainer would be best to learn on! Which is more difficult for trainers to instruct on?

Either one will make a good trainer. Have you spent any time on an r/c simulator? This will greatly enhance your enjoyment and speed your training time.

Some instructors, mostly the old guard, seem to be intimidated by using a low wing plane for a trainer, but the PTS flies very easy and slow. It also has the advantage of making a very good 2nd plane and aileron/aerobatic trainer.

Good luck!

I have spent quit a bit of time on G2 flying the pt51.

I am an instructor (and not ancient either) and I recommend a conventional high wing trainer. I own a PTS Mustang, and although it is a very well behaved aircraft, a high wing trainer will be better at first.
-Steve

The Arrow. Go with a high wing trainer first.

Steve

As a trainer what is difficult about teaching with the pts? What would be the most challaging for a newbie to learn on the pts (landing, takeoff etc). Thanks

Geeez, I learning on my Avistar mk 2 with an instructor
before I go for my Tower Voyager mk2

but just for the records what is the hardest RC plane to fly?

One that the wing or elevator has just snapped off of in flight

Seriously do not get caught up with all the hype of "Oh, biplanes/warbirds/etc. are hard to fly". The truth is planes have tendancies. If they snap when stalled; learn not to stall! and you will be just fine. I had a brand new Ultimate bipe hanging from the ceiling of my garage for months afraid to fly it. What a disgusting waste of a good plane[:'(] I recently took it out for a maiden and it flies wonderfully. I know what it will do if I slow it to much on aproach for landing so you know what... I don't slow it to much. And no, it does not need to be landed very fast, just not to slow. You will feel it.

I thought the Piper RC CUb was a grip to fly?

I have a Goldberg Cub and its a kitten. Set up makes a diference and a great tool for learning a new plane is Exponential. If you have a computer radio you can "soften" the feel of the controls so you do not overcontrol a new plane. Do not use it like a crutch and weane yourself off of it or at least reduce the amount you use. My Ultimate Bipe is very pitch sensitive. I about lost it on maiden but added some Expo to soften the controls an now it's great. My Cub I know I have to control it on take off or it will ground loop and if I take off to soon or to steep it will tip stall so guess what... Yup you guessed it. I control it on take off, I don't force it up to soon or pull it to steep.

Don't misunderstand, the PTS is not a bad plane, and one can be taught with it. In my opinion though, there are better options. For one, the landing gear is more difficult to repair after several rough landings (these WILL occur throughout training) and when the gear squats in a landing the radiator scoop is right there to be smacked. 2) In training configuration it is slow to respond to power input (this makes it more difficult for your instructor to fly it out of trouble when you're low and slow.) If you remove the 'training gear' the plane responds much better, but is less forgiving in stalls and won't slow down like a more traditional trainer will. 3) I have a great disdain for the engine and prop combination that comes on the PTS. I have trouble with it leaning out at low throttle. 4) It is difficult to slow it down as much as a high wing trainer for landing while maintaining positive control authority. Some view this as a positive because it lands less like a trainer and more like every other plane you will end up flying, but in initial training phase I prefer a plane that will almost stop in the air before it stalls when teaching low approaches and landings.

I would say landing would be the most difficult phase to teach on the PTS

That said, the PTS is a really neat plane, and with a different power package and a few mods to the airframe it is a fun sport plane. It's a great second plane and a well behaved sport-scale warbird.

-Steve

As for what is the hardest plane to fly, I can't point to anything specific other than the one you are afraid of. After you get a few planes under your belt and you seek proper advice on set up and flight characteristics there isn't much to flying any plane except to relax, take a breath, and think about how the plane should respond to your inputs, what it actually is doing, and why is there any variation in the two. Most of all remember that this is supposed to be fun. After all, it's just a toy

You can read literally for weeks on end in the aerodynamics forum about what makes a plane stable and what makes a plane behave badly. Look for a high wing loading, small empenage, short tail coupling, and low power to weight ratios to indicate a more difficult aircraft. There are, of course, exceptions to these criteria as well as other factors to consider, but these are good starting points.

The "starting" configuration for the PTS should really be with the 11x6 2 bladed prop and with the airbrakes removed. Flaps working but up for normal flight. Wing droops left on.

The landing gear could stand a little re-inforcement, at worst with CA prior to installation, at best with Epoxy around the hold down block.

However with the above configuration landings are not problematic and the plane will not tip stall the wings during VERY slow approaches. The 2 blade prop gives it the missing power, while the removal of the air brakes helps with dead sticks.

i just flew my duraplane trainer yesterday for the first time and let me say i think it flew awesome didnt crash or nothin so it was a good day but i would look into a duraplane or a tower trainer iv had both R.I.P tower trainer but my dad has a PTS and he flew it with the evolution on it then he upgraded to an OS 70 4stroke on it it flies pretty fast

I taught a student on the PTS this summer. All the talk about the weak landing gear, poor fit of the low speed mixture adjustment in the cowl, bad handling with all the trainer aids are all true. Having said that, he learned to fly. I think he would have learned quicker and spent less time repairing a good high wing trainer. I second the suggestion that the Hanger 9 P-51 is a good second plane.

The student I taught on the PTS built a Spad Debonair after he learned to fly the PTS. Guess which plane he has more fun flying now? The SPAD. Its more durable, handles very well (no dihedral wing), and was cheap to build. He's learning more flying the SPAD because he's not worried about it.

Brad

I have to say (my apologies for getting off subject) that a couple of SPADs my dad and I have built have been some of the most fun I've ever had at the field. As for learning from planes, I'd say I learned the most from planes that behaved badly. An overweight E-Z Bee (who else remembers the days of learning on a Cox powered plane with a porky AM radio?), an intentionally aft balanced durabrick, and highly modified SPADs that were nearly all control surface, just to name a few. Of course, none if this stick time I have would be benificial at all without the proper primary training. I think one of the biggest mistakes a person can make in R/C is advancing too quickly. There is no reason to sell a trainer until it is absolutely raged out IMO.
-Steve

Ok, I am a newbie but my thinking is this. I am getting into this hobby to learn to fly planes like the texan, mustang, bi-planes and other aircraft. Why is it so important to get the easiest plane to fly, one that actually flies its self like auto pilot in a real airplane? As far as I can tell from these forums a trainer flies slow, lands practically stalled, and takes off without any rudder manipulation. From my understanding if I use the arrow or any other trainer with high wings and 3 big plush wheels, when I start on another plane I will still need to learn rudder control, a whole new landing technique, take off will be different and also learn different flying techniques! If I am wrong please correct me! Is the easiest route always the most efficient route? Thank you.

Trainers are slow and self righting to provide as much aid as possible to the potentially overtaxed newbie.

Simulators go a long way to teach the initial orientations and controls which in turn makes things easier for the first timer.

As such I had NO problems starting with the PTS after spending a couple of months with a sim, and performing a few minor changes to the out of the box plane as documented here.

The PTS is just about as slow as a high wing trainer (not quite, but close) with the training aids on, and almost impossible to stall with the wing droops in place. (I've never tipped stalled it with the droops on even with full up elevator on a dead stick.)

The instructor found that with the 3 bladed prop, the PTS was too slow for his liking. He had me replace it with an 11x6 two blade prop I had on hand (thanks to this forum!). He liked it's performance with this prop, and declared that "you can walk faster than it lands, excellent plane, a real winner...".

My instructor had me buddy box around the field, then on the next takeoff said, "hell you know how to fly" and handed me the controller.

I handed it back to him for landings on the next two tries on my first day as I was entirely too nervous, having never flown an RC plane before.

On the fifth flight I kept practicing lower and lower approaches, until he told me to bring the throttle down and land. I soloed with the PTS on that day.

I got my certification the third day out to the field.

There was no "natural aptitude" involved, just some sim time, and a plane that lent itself well to this.

Like most planes it has some problems, but these are not showstoppers as are often touted, while forgetting the problems that high wing trainers have too...


You can sucessfully learn with one of these. I did.


That said I've in turn helped a few people that have been trying to learn for some time. They don't seem to "get it" mentally. For them even a high wing is too fast, let alone the PTS. These people NEED sim time.

IMHO a good sim can get you past the first "humps", making a "second" plane such as the PTS a viable first trainer.


I'm glad I did not purchase a high wing trainer, especially after trying out our club's high wing trainer, as I went beyond it very quickly. I still fly the PTS however, which is it's biggest salient point, that it progresses with you.

Get an instructor. Have them orient you on the club planes if possible. Then talk to the instructor about what you should get as your first plane. You may be able to skip past the high wing trainers or use the club's...

Because the easiest plane to fly is still difficult for the beginner. One of my students right now is a full scale pilot and instructor. He knows all about the control surfaces, landing, rudder control, etc. But the physical act of launching a model airplane, flying it around the field, and then landing it safely was HARD for him. He built a Sig Kadet LT-40. It was his first attempt at building, as well as RC flight. The plane is BEAUTIFUL. Yes, its a high wing trainer, but he took his time, built it correctly, and is now VERY proud of his plane. When he's ready to solo, he's going to have a tremendous amount of fun with it.

Despite what you may have heard, no plane flys itself like autopilot. Perhaps on a dead calm day, at precisely the correct throttle setting, with the trims perfectly dialed in, the plane will fly itself across the field with no pilot input. But you still have to turn it, keep it in the flying area, and then safely bring it down.

Within 10 feet of the ground is where beginners make their mistakes. They forget that the plane is still flying even if its only a couple inches off the ground. They don't remember that THROTTLE controls altitude on approach, not elevator. They try to make the plane climb by adding elevator, which is exactly wrong. A high wing trainer helps prevent the stall that occurs when they do that. It doesn't completely prevent it, but it helps.

Trainers are designed the way they are for a reason, and it has proven reliable, safe, and effective. Yes the PTS can be made to fly like a trainer. But with all the training aids, IMHO, it actually flies worse than a high wing trainer. Like I said before, the PTS is a great SECOND plane. And yes, there will be a second plane. There always is. (and a third, and a fourth....)

Brad

This is exactly what I am talking about! If 99 % of aircraft does this why would someone want to learn for months even years on a plane that doesnt have those characteristics? If you were beside me with a buddy box and expaining exactly what you wrote, it sounds like someone could land any plane! LOL No sweat I am just curious about the high wing trainer vs the PTS. I can pay $299 for a Arrow or $399 for a PTS. It just sounds like when I advance pass the Arrow high wing trainer I will need to learn all over again on a low wing taildragger. Thanks

Not really. You won't have to 'learn all over'. Training is a continuing act that has a begining and no end. You can learn on the PTS if that is what you are set on. It has been done many times before. Crawl, walk, run. Most of us it seems suggest the Arrow over the PTS, but get the PTS if that is all that will please your hunger for aviation. More importantly, talk with an instructor and see what they are more comfortable training you on. And while you're out at the field, maybe someone will have a PTS or a high wing trainer and a buddy box who is nice enough to let you see what it feels like.

As for your wanting to fly warbirds, that is a great aspiration. They are some of the neatest planes around. They will not make even a good second plane, however, and you will need a good transition plane between your trainer (whether you go with a high wing or the PTS) and a warbird. Think of it this way. When you started school in the first grade, you didn't begin the first day of math with trigonometry or statistics, even though that is what your schooling would eventually lead to, did you? You probably started just like every one else, adding two apples to three apples to have five apples. Then you went on to a transition plane that was too difficult for you to fly on the first day. You started long division and multiplication. Then you found a decent warbird, or an extra, maybe even a pylon racer and did algebra. Then you got adventurous and did trig. Maybe calculus. You scratch built a giant P-38, or a turbine powered F-22. Whatever you fancy. And a high wing trainer will not 'fly itself' it just helps YOU learn to fly the basics.

I am a total newbe also and after hanging out at my local club and talking to others in the club who have the p51pts i bought the p51
like you said WHY learn to fly something you are not going to stay with. the p51 without the sprrd breaks(they make it to slow) is very easy to fly. I think these "trainers" have it in there minds that high wingers are THE only way to learn. I have only flown mine 3 times and find it a good flyer. also why spend 250-300 $ for a trainer your going to get bored with !!!

Nobody said it wasn't a good flyer, just not the best trainer. High wing trainers have been around and stayed for many reasons. And some of us "trainers" who recommend the flat bottom hight wing training aircraft have been at this game for over 30 years, so we do have a bit of an idea of what makes a good trainer. If the P-51 PTS works for you, great - it'll teach you quite a bit over it's life. But for most beginners the high wing is usually the best choice.

Hogflyer

also you can get in your radio and set your control settings so that you are very unlikely to oversteer the plane. and with the low wing design it is almost impossible to flip the a/c over and with the landing gear pointing foward the way it does its also ALMOST imposible to nose dive it into the ground during takeoffs and taxing. i know that a LOT of the high wing trainers have a bad habit of tipping either way .[8D]