Would any of you guys recommend someone to learn to fly on a big stik? Obviously on a budy box.

It could be done maybe not the best choice though.

If the control throws were reduced to about 50% of the recommended ‘low rates’ values it might be OK. I have a Big Stik 60. Even with a good bit of exponential dialed in, the plane is extremely touchy compared to an actual trainer type plane.

Like a Cub or Cessna, don’t let the fact that the wing is on top of the fuselage fool you into thinking it is anything like a trainer.

I actually think the Big Stik is a pretty good choice for a trainer as long as the throws are set up gently. It has more dihedral than most of the other stiks on the market, so it's self-correcting tendancies are decent. They slow down nicely for landing like a typical trainer. If you fly in a fairly windy part of the country, the Big Stik might be a good choice because it is less likely balloon into a turn than a flat-bottomed wing trainer.

If the rates are set up gentley and the plane is buddy boxed and flown with a decent instructor, a Big Stik should be just fine as a trainer.

I saw this being done a couple of weeks ago, a friend training a newbie on a stick, although I dont know which brand it was..the kid was doing ok too...he wants to go giant scale...Rog

It depends a lot on who is learning. Some of us learn faster than others. The Stiks don't have any bad habits. That big old "hershey bar" wing won't tip stall on you if you land too slow, in fact it's hard to make it do a true snap roll on purpose. These planes don't have the wing dihedral that true trainers have so it won't right itself if you roll it upside down as well as a trainer will. On the other hand, it is a lot easier to fly inverted but you won't be doing that until you are free from the buddy cord anyway.

That is what I thought, I learned on a H9 Arrow with minimal dihedral and semi sym wwing and I think that it left me one plane ahead than a regular flat bottom trainer. I am asking this because I am pulling my brother in law in and he realy does not like the traibers, big stik is not that beautiful itself but he did like it!

I started with the 60 size -- read the story here: http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_89.../tm.htm#897551

The Stik is really docile -- but can do most IMAC figures if you dial up the throws. I also agree with B.L.E -- they are hard to snap. There is a small amount of dihedral and again I agree with B.L.E., they won't right themselves as readily as a flat bottom, big dihedral trainer, but if you keep the throws down and keep it gentle, you should be just fine.

Mark

I had a Big Stik 40 with a .70 size four stroke converted to a tail-dragger and it was a very pleasant plane to fly (lost in a *snif* midair). It could probably work as a first plane with adequate supervision to begin with. No bad habits, but no good ones, either. That is, it will fly where you point it and won't wait for you to make up your mind as a trainer will. It has excellent slow flight characteristics, so going easy on the throttle would help with beginning flights, too.

A lot wil depend on the beginner's temperament and patience. You're giving the teenager with a learner's permit the keys to your sports car. Sometimes that won't lead to trouble.

Hi, ist btter bicicle landing gear?. I am expert pilot. I need the most aerobatic configuration for this plane. You have pics of the "tail-dragger" transformation?. Thanzs!

The nose wheel makes it easier for ground handling. The Sitk is long enough that there isn't much danger of nosing her over as a tail dragger.

I don't have an image but I can describe it. All I did to convert to tail-dragger was to add blind nuts and, I believe, a bit of 1/8" plywood backing for the main gear bracket so the wheels move forward with the axels just 1/2" or so ahead of the wing's leading edge. I then bent the lowers CAREFULLY in a vise just a bit so the wheels had about three degrees of toe-in. Makes it somewhat self-correcting for taxiing straight.

The tail wheel was a simple affair I formed with an angular "C" shaped piece of 3/32" music wire. I attached a piece of fiberglass reenforced plastic (from a sail batten, as I remember) to the lower fuselage and ran the wire up through a hole drilled in that in line with the rudder hinges. I used a wheel colar as a stop and bearing, bent the lower portion back and then at a right angle for the axle. The upper (where it came up through the plastic) I bent so it followed the shape of the rudder. I then formed a staple (actually a full circle loop) out of 1/16" music wire with 1" legs and pushed that up into the rudder (the legs were long enough that they went into where the control horn attached). I threaded fuel tubing over the wheel wire inside the staple loop and that snugged it up and left some give for side wobbles. It's easier to do all this before CA'ing the rudder/hinges in place.

Thanzs!, but, for the pilots experts, ist advisable? or he is better to leave it like this of origin ?

A tail dragger, as a rule, is faster because of less drag and weight vs. the same plane with a nose wheel (tricycle gear).

The cost is that it requires some opposite rudder on takeoff (usually right) because the torque of the prop/engine pulls the plane to the left while on the ground. Some planes it is hardly noticable, while others it is a real battle. Something short-coupled like a WWI biplane can be a handful. The Big Stik is relatively long and the tail tends to stay low or level. I had no problems taxiing the Big Stik. In fact, it could be "flown" with the tail off the ground and the main wheels still rolling after the first few feet. You must also get used to keeping a little up elevator to keep the wheel in contact with the ground. Especially so in the short models. When the plane is moving and the wheels hit a bump and stop the tail comes up and the prop is toast. The tail dragger is less forgiving to those who get into the bad habit of just jamming the throttle open and yanking the model into the air. Sooner or later that will catch up with you. Takes a little finesse, unless you use a lot of engine in your planes.

Landing is no different, except the tail dragger is usually easier to three-point because at slow speed the tail tends to squat anyway. I much prefer tail draggers on grass runways, as the nose wheel takes a pounding and tries to bounce over and around clumps and divits. Nose gear also tends to work loose in such "rough" conditions and that can be a nuisance to deal with.

and, the diedrhal?, is better 0º or the 3º original?

Mine was as is. It flew very well inverted, though the knife edge was not spectacular. 0º may help that.

and, the hinges kit, CA, works well? or it is better the kavan hinges?

I use and like CA hinges in models up to about eight pounds or so. I've never had one fail, though I suppose a very frequently flown plane (like 20 flights a week all year) might flex them enough to weaken. The Kavans are certainly more rugged, but any hinge can be installed improperly and a properly installed CA is better than a baddly aligned and glued up pinned bearing.

One of the biggest advantages of the flexing CA type is that they cannot be misaligned. I've seen models where metal pinned hinges were so crooked it caused servo failure from fighting the hinges.

Bennett Built sells BIG CA hinge material for 30 lb models. Someone must be trusting $2,000 models to them.