Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > Beginners
Reload this Page >

Is a bigger plane better to train with?

Notices
Beginners Beginners in RC start here for help.

Is a bigger plane better to train with?

Old 02-01-2007, 12:01 AM
  #1  
tronco
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: , CT
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default Is a bigger plane better to train with?

Is a bigger plane better to train with? is there much difference in learnability from 52-70" wingspan? I want the Sig LT 40 but 70" wingspan is pushing the limmits of my work bench. so my second chioce is either...

Tower Hobbies TOWER Trainer 40 {55" WS }
( http://www2.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin...8&I=LXJA29&P=K )

and...

Great Planes PT-40 { 60 " WS }
( http://www2.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin...?&I=LXJ557&P=K )

i can make my space work if needed. all i care about is getting the best plane to train on.
oh, and is it worth the $ to get bearings in my engine?
Old 02-01-2007, 12:12 AM
  #2  
YNOT
Senior Member
 
YNOT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: The Woodlands, TX
Posts: 2,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Is a bigger plane better to train with?

The PT's are great, you can't go wrong with either.

It the Kadet doesn't work for you because of space, go with the others. No big deal.

If you have a decent instructor, you will never know the diff.

Yea, do the bearing motor, you will be happier with it in the long run. Just do an OS and be happy for life.
Old 02-01-2007, 12:47 AM
  #3  
Mr67Stang
 
Mr67Stang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Raeford, NC
Posts: 3,822
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Is a bigger plane better to train with?

A larger plane (wing span) rolls much slower than a smaller one and generally is slower in all movements giving the beginner more time to react to the inevitable goof. Also the can be seen clearly a longer distances reducing disorientation. But as YNOT has stated if you seek propper instruction and get a talented instructor you could be tought proper flight skills on a 30 in wing span 3 channel electric.

EDIT// Oh yea! Get the bearinged OS or Thunder Tiger engine as it will be moved into your next plane and a bushinged engine will become a paper weight.
Old 02-01-2007, 03:10 AM
  #4  
bigedmustafa
My Feedback: (2)
 
bigedmustafa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Omaha, NE
Posts: 4,107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Is a bigger plane better to train with?

A "bigger" trainer can be defined a few different ways. The Tower Trainer kit when compared to the GP PT 40 kit is actually about the same size. Despite the 5" advantage that the PT-40 kit has, both planes build out to a 52" fuselage length and around 5lbs. flying weight depending on the engine selected. The PT-40 should have more gentle flying characteristics than the Tower trainer kit, however, because of the extra wing span.

A .60-sized trainer will generally be more stable and easier to see than a .40-sized trainer. It's interesting to compare various trainers in terms of wingspan, fuselage length, and flying weight before making your selection.

Several .40-sized trainers boast wing spans and fuselage lengths as large as .60-sized trainers. Compare the Sig Kadet LT-40 to the Hobbico Hobbystar .60, for example. The LT-40 boasts a 70" wingspan while the Hobbistar .60 has a 71" wingspan. The LT-40 has a 56" length while the Hobbistar is actually an inch shorter at 55". The biggest difference? The LT-40 should build out at 5.5 to 6 lbs. while the Hobbistar weighs in at 7.5 lbs ready to fly.

The best plane to train with is the plane with the widest wing span combined with the lightest flying weight... assuming you don't build it crooked!
Old 02-01-2007, 05:25 AM
  #5  
forestroke
Senior Member
 
forestroke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Taipei, TAIWAN
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Is a bigger plane better to train with?

bigger is better as long as they are both trainers. the LHS uses a huge trainer that spans 90" with a fuse nearly 70" long. the plane is rated for G23~26 but he has a 45cc gasser from china on it.

because it's big, its slow and floaty
because it's big, it's easy to see
because it's big, it takes a LOT of wind to phase it
because it's a gasser, i've never seen it deadstick

the lhs owner, who's the same guy who has the jet-powered GeeBee, is a loon. here he is hovering this trainer...
Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	Qo40430.jpg
Views:	4
Size:	22.1 KB
ID:	611289  
Old 02-01-2007, 06:24 AM
  #6  
Mode One
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Park Rapids, MN
Posts: 2,989
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Is a bigger plane better to train with?

This is also a truth: Bigger generally flies better/Bigger generally costs more. If your buying and building the plane, this might be something to consider. Most beginners don't have access to a trainer supplied by the LHS or the local club. Further, I think there are many benefits to building one's own first trainer. The process of building teaches building skills and the mechanics of flight and gives a grasp of how to repair the inevitable damage which will occure.

I think either of the planes you have proposed will work fine for you, provided you find help with an instructor.
Old 02-01-2007, 06:55 AM
  #7  
CGRetired
My Feedback: (1)
 
CGRetired's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Galloway, NJ
Posts: 8,999
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Is a bigger plane better to train with?

I must join in on this topic because I've recommended larger aircraft to trainees. The NexSTAR, for instance is larger than the Tower 40 or PT 40. I know because I had all three. Not much larger, but larger. I found the NexSTAR easier to see (hey, at 55 years old at the time, I need any advantage I can get and eyesight does not get better with age.. I am now 60). As advertized above in other posts, they are slower and have slower roll rates and so on, and come on landing at a much slower rate. It was easier to see responses to in puts, especially on landing when flaring was taking place. I could actually see the plane's nose rise with slight inputs from the elevator for the flair maneuver. I learned how much input was needed to carefully land the plane and not bounce it.

When I got my first tail dragger, it was a Four Star 40. It was tough for me because it was a tail dragger and it took me a little time to get it to land properly, but the training I got from the larger planes, watching the tail and the nose do it's thing with inputs from the elevator, well, I soon learned how to land it without bouncing it.

I now have several 90 and 120 size planes with large 2 stroke fuel engines and they all fly just great but the best thing is I can see them very easily and handle them. I also have a Goldberg Wild Stick 40 that I fly at club events, but after flying the larger planes, I find that I have to spend the first fuel tank learning how to fly the darned thing again.. but that's me and probably not many other flyers.

Last word is that flying the larger aircraft trainers provides great visibility and slower flying speeds to allow the student to see the effects of their work with the transmitter sticks.

DS.
Old 02-01-2007, 04:12 PM
  #8  
Student Pilot
Member
My Feedback: (2)
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Milford, MI
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Is a bigger plane better to train with?

Shoot, somehow I deleted my original reply, so here's the re-do:

My first plane was a GP PT-60. Although it wasn't a bad plane to start with, if I were to do it over again I would have gotten the SIG LT-40. You just can't beat the parts fit of laser-cut parts. My second plane was a SIG 4*60 and it just fell together. The LT-40 has the bigger wing like a PT-60, yet flies on a .46-size engine that will save you some money. You get the best of both worlds, a bigger wing and a less-expensive engine. Whichever plane you end up with, consider taking some of the dihedral out of the wing (my PT-60 had a crazy amount of dihedral). This makes the plane easier to fly (for a 15-year-old me anyways) as it wasnt so sluggish and slow to respond. My reflexes weren't exactly hurting at the time. Your call though, it's just another option that is not difficult to do and can be very rewarding, especially if you plan on ever flying your trainer after you finish your training.

As for engines, If money isn't a concern and you want a fast break-in and no-hassle engine go ahead and pick up an OS. You're going to hear horror stories about every engine manufacturer out there, even OS and TT. Things can't be perfect all the time, so don't expect to not have any problems just because you bought an OS or TT. If you're new, which I'll assume you are, there is always going to be a learning curve.

When I got started I was in 8th grade and didn't exactly have any spare money to spend on an OS .61FX, so I bought an MDS .68 Pro (I paid for everything myself, my parents never helped me, money wise, one bit). I saved $50 compared to the OS and, although the MDS took a longer time to break-in, it turned out to be a spectacular engine that has TONS of power. Now if saving $50 (or whatever the difference is) is worth it to you, that's YOUR call. For Example- I just bought a Magnum 91 4-stroke AND a GP Big Stik 60 ARF from Tower and spent less than I would have on just an OS 91 4-stroke. Being a college student, I still don't have much money to spend, so this was an obvious decision for me. Keep in mind that I spend A LOT of time researching anything I'm considering buying so that I am getting the most for my money. So far I've never regreted anything that I've bought; it pays to be knowledgable about what you're spending your money on. Personally, I own 8 engines and not even one of them is an OS.

If you ended up getting the LT-40 the Tower Hobbies .46 BB is a pretty good value @ $80 and I the Magnum .46 BB is on sale for $60 right now (http://www2.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin...?&I=LXBUX6&P=0). As for the OS .46 AX, I've seen them as low as $105 or so and I'm sure that you would be happy with it if you were to choose it. If you have any patience at all you'll do just fine with any engine; it takes time to learn how to tune an engine. Knowing, or learning, how the engine works really helps make things go smoother as well since knowing how the parts of an engine interact allow you to diagnose and make the proper adjustment.
Old 02-01-2007, 04:29 PM
  #9  
hezik
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: VleutenUtrecht, NETHERLANDS
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Is a bigger plane better to train with?

"is a bigger plane a better trainer"

I guess that depends on what your training for. If you want to keep flying big planes, it probably is. If not, a smaller plane might be better. Really big trainers tend to get boring soon.
Old 02-01-2007, 04:52 PM
  #10  
Charlie P.
 
Charlie P.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Port Crane, NY
Posts: 5,088
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Is a bigger plane better to train with?

Specific to training my opinion would be go with a .40

That is the least expensive size because it is the most common, so there are economies of scale from mfg to sales shop. Servos are $14 each, the .40 LA is cheaper than engines smaller or larger. More good trainers available. Less investment in materials.

If you are independantly wealthy a gas plane would be wonderful. Big and friendly, no field box to haul (no starter or glow plug driver needed). Strong and less wind shy.

But a momentary lapse of control and $800 to $900 is a pile of sticks even with the basic airframes.

And when you have your "learning experience" with a finger in a prop it's probably better to start with a 10" or 11" one instead of a 16" or 18"
Old 02-01-2007, 05:09 PM
  #11  
LT-40
My Feedback: (2)
 
LT-40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: American Fork , UT
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Is a bigger plane better to train with?

I think that bigger is better becuase it is easy to see, and generaly more stable. This is why I got the LT-40 it is bigger than most 60 sized trainers, and has more wing area than the hobbico .60 trainer. This means you don't have to spend the money for a .60 engine, and it has a very low wing loading. If space is an issue than go smaller. But if you get the LT-40 ARF, the wing won't spend much time on the bench anyways so space shouldn't be a problem.

LT-40
Old 02-01-2007, 06:04 PM
  #12  
Mode One
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Park Rapids, MN
Posts: 2,989
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Is a bigger plane better to train with?

Maybe some clairification is in order, at least from my perspective. I don't consider either plane tronco is considering "Big Planes". Big to me is described by the IMAA well enough, so I'll leave it up to them. I started with a .60 sized trainer. .40 to .60 sized trainers are somewhat the norm.
Old 02-01-2007, 11:27 PM
  #13  
Charlie P.
 
Charlie P.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Port Crane, NY
Posts: 5,088
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Is a bigger plane better to train with?

True enough. "Biggerness" is more felt in weight and wing loading than wingspan alone.

Remember for your work bench consideration: 90% of the building for a wing with seperated spars is at 1/2 the wing's width. Only the last little connection and sheeting phase (where one side is blocked up and can be over a chair or on the floor anyway) is full width building. Whan sanding and covering it doesn't matter if half is out in space beside the table.

Transportation and storage is more often the limiting factor.
Old 02-02-2007, 12:34 AM
  #14  
tronco
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: , CT
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Is a bigger plane better to train with?

So what I'm hearing is that a larger plane (such as the LT 40) flys slower, floats better, rolls slower, and is more visible. All of wich sounds like a good thing for a rookie like me. As for my limited work space, well, I suppose I'm more concerned about storage. And actually, its my wife that is mostly concerned about that.

Well, my mind is made up (until I change it again). I will figure out a way to store the LT 40. I want every advantage I can get while I am learning to fly and it sounds like bigger is better for that. Besides, I have heard nothing but good about the LT 40. As for the engine, I'll cough up the extra 30$ to get the OS w/ bearings.
Thanks all
Old 02-02-2007, 06:26 AM
  #15  
Mode One
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Park Rapids, MN
Posts: 2,989
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Is a bigger plane better to train with?

Bushed engines have been around a long time, it is a viable option! With proper care they may last as long as engines with bearings. I don't have any acting as paper weights, in almost forty years of fooling with them.
Old 02-02-2007, 08:19 AM
  #16  
BillS
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Greensboro, NC
Posts: 3,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Is a bigger plane better to train with?

As for my limited work space, well, I suppose I'm more concerned about storage. And actually, its my wife that is mostly concerned about that.
Storage for a trainer will not be a problem and your wife should not worry. Most trainers will end up in a trash bag.

Your wife should worry about the next ten airplanes that you are going to buy or build.

Bill
Old 02-02-2007, 03:10 PM
  #17  
Dave trimmer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hamilton, ON, CANADA
Posts: 496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Is a bigger plane better to train with?

I prefere a small plane, you will be more skilled in wind flying. i learned on a small 25 trainer. it was quite windy on my first landing. i was at half power standing still. once i moved on to bigger planes it was very easy to fly any plane.
Old 02-02-2007, 06:32 PM
  #18  
Mode One
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Park Rapids, MN
Posts: 2,989
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Is a bigger plane better to train with?

[/quote]
Storage for a trainer will not be a problem and your wife should not worry. Most trainers will end up in a trash bag.

Your wife should worry about the next ten airplanes that you are going to buy or build.

Bill
[/quote]

Were are the moderators, when they are truly needed? This thread needs to be nipped, Nipped in the Bud!! (This is a call for DepFife) Nip it! Nip it in the BUD!!
Old 02-02-2007, 09:34 PM
  #19  
Charlie P.
 
Charlie P.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Port Crane, NY
Posts: 5,088
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Is a bigger plane better to train with?

I have heard nothing but good about the LT 40.
Our club helped an engineering Explorer post build four or them (four teams of three or four kids and one adult builder per team - I think I was the adult). I can tell you there doesn't seem to be a wrong way to build an LT-40, and it is an ideal trainer. There must have been two pounds difference in the weights judging from the amount of glue used or not used by the teams. When you get good, put floats or skis on it and you will never outgrow it (at least not for my style of fun flying).

I swear, one team was three girls and they built an LT-40 with not quite one third of a bottle of an 8 oz. Titebond II. I thought it was going to crumple on landing . . . but as far as I know it is three years and many students along and holding up. Of course, my team was perfect and one of the others used TWO BOTTLES of Titebond II. Of course, most was on the waxed paper or in drp puddles between parts that was later chipped off. They all flew.
Old 02-02-2007, 10:05 PM
  #20  
happypappy
Senior Member
My Feedback: (10)
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Eustis, FL
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Is a bigger plane better to train with?

Would consider the 80" Sig Kadet Sr. The wing can remain a two piece wing and that saves a bunch of space! The plane flies beautifully, will be a great float plane later on if you so desire, and is a plane you will want to keep and fly no matter how good you get. Touch and go's and crosswind landings are easily mastered using this plane and those skills are carried on throughout your learning curve. I still have one and love to fly it. It flies on a minimum amount of power and will stay in the air at reduced throttle settings for a lonnnngggg time! Mine currently has a Saito .56 and it is a great match even with the when I put the floats on. Many are flown with .40-.46 two-strokes.

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.