Hi everyone!

I started flying last summer with a Alpha 40 trainer. And now I'd like to buy a more "acrobatic" plane.
I want a plane that have between 40 and 60 inch wingspan, "easy" to fly and reliable. In all the choice available wich one is the most recommended?

Thanks!

P.S. Happy Holidays to everyone!

ARFing or building?

It's hard to beat a Stik for the combination of easy and acrobatic, the GP .40 is right in your size. Check out the planes at Cedar Hobbies, too. A Sig Somethin Extra is also a good choice, a little less stable but more responsive. I'm kind of partial to the looks of the Goldberg Tiger 2 as a second plane. Goldberg also has the Skylark back out and that would be a great choice for Aresti aerobatics (what a human might fly while in a real plane) as opposed to "3-D".

all planes are acrobatic when you flub the landing, they go doing cart wheels across the runway, and doing spins and rolls

sorry, just had to say that

aerobatic planes are a different story. I had a SSE and loved it. It was my 2nd plane, and on normal rates, flew just as easy as my LT-40 that I learned on.

It depends if you want a kit or an ARF.

In my opinion, some good second planes are the Sig 4-star and the Great Planes Rapture. both have great flught characteristics and are a step up in aerobatic performance form a trainer.

The Sig Somthin Extra may not be a bad choices but it is a little more responsive than the first two. Stick with low rates for a while until you're comfortable.

I also think the Hangar-9 Twist .40 could be a second plane if you kept the throws on low rates at first. The best part is the ARF is only $99.

Or when you get a wasp up your pantleg or down your shirt collar.


Did you know Citabria spelled backwards is "airbatic"?

buzzlightyear,

I think you soloed just 6 months or so after I did. I know you will get LOTS of opinions on what your next plane should be, but it really depends on what skills you want to master next. Almost any plane with the right setup can be aerobatic and do almost any maneuver.

My progression went something like this:

Trainer, Super Stick, Ultra Stick, UCD .46, Mayhem, Showtime 4D, 50cc Edge 540, 100cc Extra 330, 50cc Extra 260. The last 4 are flown concurrently with the exception of the 50cc planes. One of which is not done, (260), yet and one of which was stripped to build it after only 20 flights, (540T). It was a pig at 22 lbs and I hated landing it.

I think you would be VERY happy with a Showtime 4D 90. It is supremely aerobatic, cheap and forgiving. Use a 1.25 or larger engine and digital servos with metal gears and LONG metal servo arms. I fly mine on full 3D rates and 80% expo, no other rates or mixing are required. Skip the UCD and the Mayhem...they are just too draggy with that thick wing.

Good Luck!!

I solo'd on an Avistar 2 years ago and have since flown a Tiger 2, Somethin' Extra, and Ultra Stick 40. Of the 3 since my trainer, the Tiger 2 was by far the easiest to fly, but had good aerobatic qualities. The SSE is the most aerobatic, but is much touchier on the controls - by all means keep the rates low and use lots of exponential to start out. The Ultra Stick is a happy medium between the Tiger and the SSE. It takes off and lands much like a trainer, but will handle aerobatics pretty nicely. If you are REALLY comfortable with aerobatics on a trainer, then you could probably move up to the SSE without a lot of risk. If you still worry about crashing, the Tiger is a better choice. But the US is probably the best compromise.

I have to agree with the Stick as a great suggestion. I'm unsure if any kit sticks are still available. The Hanger 9 Ultra Stick 40 is a great plane. Sticks are ugly, but, oh so good at flying. Sig's 4 Star series are also great flyers and a good choice for a second plane. I believe they even come as kits, if you had the desire to do. Since you are in the middle of the building season, where you live, I strongly suggest building a kit! Fully 50% of my enjoyment of this hobby comes from building models. Don't miss out on the FUN!!!

I'm clearly 51/49 - but it depends on the season which one is flying or building!

I guess I'd have to ask you what you want your "Aerobatic aircraft" to do...

Do you want a slow-flying plane for 3D type of stunts, or are you thinking of a more "pattern" type of aerobatics? I enjoy both 3D and IMAC (I fly giant-scale stuff usually, but I still keep a profile 3D plane for fun.)

There have been some good suggestions above, but they are all over the board in terms of what YOU want from your plane.

I'd recommend a thick-wing profile plane for 3D "funfly" aerobatics...they fly slowly, are easy to fix, very tough, inexpensive, and are very neutral so 3D type stuff is as easy as it can be from a small airframe. You can learn to hover one of these as easily as anything...with practice, you'll be able to fly these in a very small area. I have had the [link=http://www.extremeflightrc.com/html/edge540.html]Extreme Flight[/link] for about a year and have enjoyed abusing it...erh, flying it....here's a [link=http://www.extremeflightrc.com/video/edge540t_funfly.wmv]Video[/link] Mine is set up exactly like the one in the video...I'd really recommend the 4-stroke (I'd use the Saito .82 instead of the older .72.)

For more "pattern" aerobatics you might want a symmetrical airfoil mid-wing plane. Unfortunately, the smaller the plane, the harder pattern flying is...not that you shouldn't practice pattern flying. You'll be amazed at how few flyers at the field cannot fly in a straight horizontal line parallel to the runway from one end of the field to the other...sounds goofy, but it is much more difficult than it sounds. Practicing pattern flying will make you a much better flyer in a short span of time.

Anyway...

For a general, funflying, low-stress plane, I'd agree with the Twist recommendation. I just can't warm-up to the different "Sticks" out there...but people love 'em! I had a twist when they came out and found it to be tough and easy to fly.

I have owned the early Funtanas, both the .40 size and the .90 size. I did enjoy the .90 size, while I really hated the .40 size. Someone recommended the new .90 Funtana, but it may be bigger than what you were asking for. Mine flew very well and I would still have it except that I just don't like larger glow engines (well, I don't care for ANY glow engines really) and just fly one of my gassers instead. As I said, I kept one glow plane...the EF Edge profile...it's just too fun to give up, in fact I flew it yesterday for the first time in a couple of months...FUN!

So, these are my thoughts based upon my experiences...not what I read on RCU, no magazine articles, just what I have owned and/or flown. Sorry I can't help out more on the "pattern" plane. I did see a talented kid at an IMAC contest win Basic with a Fliton pattern plane. It looked well built. If I wanted a pattern plane in that size range, I'd look at the [link=http://fliton.com/new/product/ins60.asp]INSPIRE[/link] from Fliton. I'd use a (used) Saito .72, or (preferably) the newer Saito .82...this engine is very light (for a 4S) and is easy to tune and very reliable. Nice power from a small mill. You'd certainly use that engine in other planes after the Inspire. DISCLAIMER: I have not flown this plane, I saw one flown by a fellow who impressed me, AND I am assumming that you want it for "Pattern", not 3D.

There you go, good luck with whatever you choose!

Robert

EDIT: here's an RCU review of this plane : [link=http://www.rcuniverse.com/magazine/article_display_preview.cfm?article_id=786]Inspire/RCU[/link]

A world models skyraider mach II (arf $69.99) with a O.S. .46ax on it. I'll bet it'll do anything you can possibly have in mind, plus alot more.

Ronnie

WHY? I'm curious to hear your reasoning.

That plane won't do pattern OR 3d...but I guess it IS more aerobatic than a trainer...depending on your definition of aerobatic.

That plane can't do ANYTHING I have in mind...but this isn't about me.

Buzz...I just noticed where you're from...my family is Quebecois. I lived there briefely when I was in High School (ecole secondaire.)

Good luck with your flying!

Everybody has got off the original post from what I can see. All he has flown so far is a trainer, and I don't see anything mentioned about pattern or 3d in the post.

With out a lot of experience, the mach II is a good built, cheap, low wing plane to start doing manuvers with that you wouldn't do with a trainer.

Besides, have you ever tried a machII with a 46 ax on it? If not, I'll bet it would surprise you what that plane and engine is capable of.


Ronnie

actually, his origional post was about acrobatic planes... no one wants one of those if you think about it

True, it's definitely no a bad airplane for the money. I've thought about getting one just to have around to fly now and then.

Ronnie,

You're right, it's cheap.

I can send you a pic of me with a MachII but it's not mine. A guy at our club has one...but I haven't flown it. Frankly, he doesn't really care for it (but he did when he first got it), but since I haven't actually flown it, I didn't (and cannot) describe the idiosyncrasies of that plane...just the generality that it doesn't do any particular thing very well, and because of its design, it simply can't...but you're right, it's more agile. However, agility - for agility's sake - is worthless.

You were willing to bet that the MachII will "do anything you can possibly have in mind, plus alot more." Hmm... I'll bet that with the dihedral the MachII has, it's not able to roll very axially...its wing (and the dihedral) make flying inverted "clumsy", it will loop - but so will the planes I suggested...and they'll all do it alot better, there will be a good (bad) bit of roll coupling (from the yaw axis). General flying and landing the planes I suggested is easy...the fat-wing 3D type planes are easier to land than a trainer since they can fly so slowly and offer great yaw-axis control without all the roll-coupling. Look, I'm not trying to bash you...I just am trying to figure out why you think this is such a great performing plane?!? Have you ever flown higher quality aerobatic planes...either a 3D plane or a design resembling a pattern plane (aerobatic planes often seem to get lumped into those 2 catagories)? When/if you do, you'll laugh at ever having written that about a MachII.

Acrobatic...as was pointed out above, he certainly meant aerobatic. If he's from PQ, then his first tounge is probably French, not English, so some of the subtlties of the language may escape him a bit. That said, when I think of aerobatic in terms of RC planes, I'm not thinking about flying in circles with a plane that's a little trickier to land (but otherwise shares most of the traits of a trainer.) I think of flight which requires skill and practice..but -admittedly - that's just me and I am likely to be in the minority with that opinion in the "Beginner's Forum."

MOST IMPORTANTLY, I thought my questions and suggestions were well thought out...my suggestions encourage Buzz to figure out what he wants his next plane to do, then look for a plane which can do what he wants it to do. My suggestions were accompanied by my reasoning for making those suggestions. Why suggest a plane which he'll likely "outgrow" as soon as he flys it a few times? Maybe he just wants to be a "circle flyer" which is OK...at least his choice of plane would be geared for his expectations. I wish I would have been given that type of guidance early on. I would have saved some serious $$$ on planes and equipment which I bought that didn't live up to my expectations.

So, I asked you a question in my post to you and you didn't answer it, you just semi-flamed me instead. That's OK, I have pretty thick skin. I have flown numerous glow-sized planes...few flew very well...even some of the popular ones. How about you?

I'm not saying the Skyraider is a BAD plane...just that there are so many planes out there which are so much better. A well-designed, and properly trimmed plane is a joy to fly. When I got interested in IMAC is when the puzzle all came together for me. Unfortunately, only a few people have ever actually flown planes which are designed and set-up correctly. When I say trimmed, I don't mean that the trim levers on your radio make your plane fly straight...I'm talking about a plane with the flight parameters properly set...CG, servo-centering/resolution, proper mechanical advantage, Horns symmetrically positioned, Aileron Differential-when required, proverse/adverse yaw eliminated/minimized etc. etc. etc. It's not magic or some wierd voodoo...once you've flown a plane which can "groove"...you just can't go back!

Ronnie, you're a toolman, Right? If I've only used cheap Chinese wrenches and sockets and power tools, I'd probably think they were just fine. The wrenches and sockets usually fit the hardware alright...they only round-off nuts sometimes. I might even declare their virtues on ToolUniverse.Com. But after I've used Snap-On wrenches & sockets, and...say Bosch powertools, I'd never want to go back to the cheapo Chinese stuff...not after actually experiencing the difference.

So [link=http://www.rcuniverse.com/community/profile.cfm?section=models&memid=217731]Ronnie,[/link] I have a question for you (since you didn't answer the first one) :

Q: You were willing to bet that the MachII will "do anything you can possibly have in mind, plus alot more." Like what?

Happy landings and Merry Christmas!

OK, we'll try it again. The statement I made was directed to his post, not yours. In the post from me to you, I just said that you ought to try one sometime.

It's a heckuva a lot better to crash a $70 plane practicing with than a $150-$200 or more plane. Remember, he is just moving to his second plane from the sound of the post.

I was not flaming you as you might think. Sorry if you took it that way

As far as The Toolman goes, I own a machine shop and build custom M/C parts and industrial liquid an chemical pump parts . Some of the finest machinery and tooling I have comes from Japan, Switzerland, Austria and a few other overseas places. Some of the crappiest stuff I own comes from right here in the U.S.A.

Snap-on and Mac Tools--paying for the name, same with Bosch.
Matco tools are a quality tool with a good price, Makita power tools will do the same thing at alot less cost.

Sometimes cheaper IS better.

Ronnie

Buy two "second" aircraft. Get a Thunder Tiger Tiger Stick .40 ARF and an ACE Cloud Dancer .40 ARF and put Thunder Tiger Pro .46 engines on the nose of each one. You will never be bored again, unless of course it's raining outside.

Stiks are great second planes. Sig Four Stars and Goldberg Tigers are great second planes. The new Pulse XT or T-34 Mentor ARFs from Hangar 9 would be a great second plane. The Great Planes Rapture 40 kit, Easy Sport, and Big Stik are great second planes. The Phoenix Models Dolphin and Super Decathalon would be great second planes. The Seagull Models Spacewalker II ARF, PC-9 ARF, and Decathalon .40 ARF would all be great second planes. World models choices would include the LA Racer ARF, the Super Sports 40/40S, The Sky Raider Mach II, and the Super Stunts. Your choices from VMar/Richmond RC would include the Escape, the Ramrod, the V-Stik, the Xtreme Stik shoulder wing, the Xstreme Stik low wing, the Arrow, the Arrow Tiger, the AT-6, the T-34, the PC-9, the Tecano. Model Tech and Sportsman Aviation both have stiks that would be a good fit for you. The Kangke Phoenix-50 and Sky Dancer 50 ARFs would be great second planes for you.

You have a wealth of great options for acrobatic planes that will allow you to practice all kinds of flying manuevers with them while still maintaining an easy-to-land posture that will make them a great transition from your trainer to more challenging aircraft. You have the tough job, you have to decide which one (or two) you want.