bigedmustafa

My Feedback: (2)

There are lot of new and exciting things happening in our sport right now, and the rate of innovation can be breathtaking at times. Brushless electric power systems, wildly aerobatic 3D micro helicopters, spread spectrum 2.4Ghz radio systems, 3D aircraft with side force generators, balanced LiPo batteries and chargers, and even new glow engines designed for environmentally friend bio fuels are all popping onto our marketplace at an amazing rate. It's tough to keep up with all of the exciting new trends and innovations.

A few things in this hobby will likely never change, however. Have you ever heard a mantra like, "Build it straight and lightweight and it will fly good"? How about, "A nose-heavy plane will fly poorly, but a tail-heavy plane will only fly once?" If anyone ever sits down to write an RC Bible, surely sayings like these will be in the book of RC Proverbs.

New pilots entering this fantastic sport have a huge advantage over the long-time veterans; we can learn from their past trials and mistakes without having to make them ourselves. There are fountains of RC wisdom available to new pilots at our local clubs, here at RC Universe, and writing articles for all of our favorite (paper and ink) RC magazines. So why is it more of us aren't listening?

One of the things about this hobby that amazes me is how little regard most sport flyers have for the history of model aviation. Maybe it's because the hobby is so innundated right now with ground-breaking new technology that so many freshman RC pilots tend to gravitate to only the newest and shiniest planes, radios, and engines.

I'm not suggesting that folks interested in learning to fly RC planes should skip purchasing an Alpha .40 RTF at their local hobby store and elect instead to scratch-build a Bucaneer old-timer and buy a reed-valve engine to fly it with. A great number of innovations have made this sport more enjoyable and more accessable over the last several years, and those are innovations that I applaude.

Other "innovations" seem to be more dubious, however. There's an old saying that if you want to make money selling fishing lures, you need to design them to catch fisherman and not fish. In that spirit, we have seen the Nexstar ALS system (great technology if you only fly at noon), the P51 Mustang PTS (you can claim you were shot down by the Germans when you crash it), and now a plane that is jokingly being referred to as the F-22 "Craptor" PTS by some posters hear at RCU.

What's ironic is that these are basically good planes. I myself bought a Nexstar and learned to fly on it. The P-51 PTS and F-22 PTS are both good sport planes by most accounts, even if they aren't really the best first glow aircraft for a budding new pilot. What I'm saying is that these planes, the three most expensive .40-sized RTFs on the planet, are designed more for luring pilots than teaching pilots to fly. They been packaged to maximize their style and glitz, with less attention focused on really being a solid basic trainer aircraft.

With all of these flashy new RTF trainer packages around, airplane kits like the Great Planes PT-40/PT-60, the Goldberg Eagle 2, and the Sig Kadet Senior/MkII/LT-40 continue to sell to modellers around the world. Why? Because they're classics! These are airframes that have earned their reputations over the years with modellers. These are airplanes with superior design qualities that build straight and they build light and they fly good.

I'm not trying to argue that we should all be building kits instead of ARFs or anything of the sort, either. I've always joked that if I'd had to build my own trainer from a kit before I could learn to fly I still wouldn't be up in the air yet. The Goldberg Eagle 2 and the Sig Kadet LT-40 are available in ARFs that, by all accounts, fly just a fantastic as the kit versions of the same plane. Sig even offers the LT-40 in a glow ready-to-fly version and an electric ready-to-fly version.

All I'm saying is, the next time you're getting ready to spend your own hard-earned cash on a new airplane or radio or engine, ask yourself this question, "Has this product stood the test of time?" If you're shopping for the latest and greatest spread spectrum radio or brushless outrunner power system, this question may not be relevant. If you're shopping for a trainer or a sport plane, or any other product category that existed more than three years ago however, this is a very valid question.

The best products in this sport have stood the test of time. Why can Goldberg still sell the dated and somewhat homely Tiger 2/Tiger .60 kit and ARF in this day and age? It's that good of an airplane. Why is the Sig Four Star at the top of everyone's favorite sport plane list year after year after year? It's that good of an airplane. Why are folks still building Telemasters and Kadets and Eagles and Falcons from kits when you can buy a Nexstar ARF for $99.99? Because they are that good, they are classics, they have stood the test of time.

I have to confess that one plane that bugs the heck out of me right now is the Hangar 9 Pulse XT .40 ARF. I like Hangar 9 products, I think the plane is really good looking, I'm confident that it's well made and straightforward to assemble like almost all Hangar 9 products. It bugs me because it's a product that nobody needs except Hangar 9. It bugs me that so many pilots are buying them because they're shinier and newer looking than products that are better. The Pulse XT .40 is a nice looking plane from a respectable company, but I hate the fact that it's preventing pilots from flying some of the true classics of the sport.

To me, flying a Pulse XT .40 is like eating a veggie burger. It's a lot like the source it draws its inspiration from. There are some things about it that are even better than the original (zero cholesteral, a nice looking cowling). If you're hungry and you eat one, it will hit the spot. No matter what you do, no matter how much you dress up a veggie burger though, it's just not as good as the real deal. To me, the Ugly Stik (and all of its glorious incarnations) is the real deal. The Sig Four Star is the real deal. The Goldberg Tiger 2, by golly, that's the real deal. The Pulse XT .40 ARF? To me, that's a really well-made, tasty garden burger.

When you're shopping, talk to some veterans and find out about some of those funny older products that are still around. Why are Super Tigre ringed engines still on the market when you could buy Evolution or O.S. Max ABC engines instead? How come folks are still buying Sig Kobra, Kougar, and King Cobra kits for sport/pattern planes when you could just buy a Venus .40 ARF instead? Why did RC Ken hold his breath and jump up and down for three or four year until Don Anderson agreed to re-issue the original Ultra Sport .40 and .60 kits? Isn't an Edge 540 or a Cap 232 more aerobatic? Why does RC Ken care? All of my buddies are flying JR and Futaba radio systems. Why is it that both Horizon and Hobbico have been forced to carry Airtronics radio equipment too? Does Airtronics offer something the bigger names don't?

Wildly changing technology and constant innovation have made this an exciting sport in recent years. Some market segments are technology driven, and new products are absolutely necessary to keep fueling growth. Other market segments are more mature, however, like glow engines and trainers and sport planes and 72Mhz radios. Some of the best products in these market segments are so good that they're boring. They're tried and true and they haven't changed in decades and hopefully they never will. These are some of the truly outstanding products that we have available to us.

My advice for new and enthusiastic pilots is to gain an appreciation of the classics in this sport. It's fun to have the newest, shiniest stuff that was just reviewed in this month's Fly RC or Model Airplane News. Sometimes though, a manufacturer has to add some bells and whistles and glitter to their new trainer, because it's not as good as the Sig Kadet LT-40, but they have to try to sell it anyway. Learn from those who came before you, and find out what some of the tride and true benchmark products are in this industry. It might just save you from buying something called a "Craptor" as your very first RTF glow trainer.

Mr67Stang

Looks like you've been chewwing on this one for a while. While I agree with most of what you are saying here unfortunately most people won't take the time to read and understand the entire editorial. Personally, I am a fan of the 1/2a classics. I recently procured two Top Flite replicas of the discontinued School Boy trainer (.020 peewee power) and the School Girl Bipe (.049) These planes are so beautifully crafted with timeless yet un-reproduced lines that they hang as displays in my bedroom. Oh and they are not covered with monocoat. They are fully balsa sheeted and painted with clear and colored dope.

Insanemoondoggie

I built a Lt40 and 4*, and am putting together a Skybolt ARF as we speak. I do like some of the classics,.
But I also have a .40 Twist and a .60 Twist and my next one will be a larger Funtana .
The Classics represent one style of flying , pattern and aerobatic .And 10 years ago 3D was only in the theaters . With the new planes we can explore a new style of flying. They are a blast to fly and a handful which just adds to the flying pleasure.
I agree, the LT40 is hard to beat when it comes to learning. and I do like the Classic style of flying , But I like the new stuff just as well. The best of both worlds, Someone pinch me , I must be dreaming.

Mr67Stang

There are no prettier planes than early 1/2a...

bigedmustafa

My Feedback: (2)

I was half expecting to get bashed by a bunch of guys who own H9 Pulse XT .40s. Fortunately, I think my cathartic rant was so long winded that it was beyond the attention span of most of the posters!

pkevinb

I have a Pulse XT and think it is a great plane. I bought it because it seemed every one at the fields I fly at have a 4* or Tiger. I just wanted something a little different. I was going to get the Tiger2 but the Pulse came set up as a tail dragger and saved me a few dollars. My first trainer though was/is an Eagle II and my son is learning on it now. I would recommend it to anyone as a first plane.

ag4ever

What you wrote an editorial.

All I saw was a couple line about liking classic items.

Just kidding, I agree that we are all to eager to jump on a newer is better band wagon, but that is life today.

A flier just recently lost his funtana at our field with a saito 125 and digital servos. He said oh well, I guess I will have to get a new one now.

That is the type of society we live in today. Short attention span, instant gratification, and throw it away and get the new version. Just look at video game consoles. When I was growing up it was pong, then atari. That was it for a number of years and we were thrilled. Now it seems you have a new game console every year and the one you bought two years ago is not supported anymore so you need to get the new one. A vicious circle that is developed to line the pockets of the manufaturers. I will be happy just building the clasics and the new kit minding my own business. Just because it is new does not mean it is better, and just because it is a classic does not mean it is better. Get what inspires you to enjoy your hobby.

aerowoof

I've been in r/c since 1970 and controline since 1965,while you have mentioned classic planes there are also classic design features that have dissappered over the years,that were incorporated into designs to prevent problems over the years.anti warp tips on sheet tail surfaces is an easy feature to use but I do not see it in use much anymore.all it is is the last 1/2 inch to an inch of a sheet tail surface is cross grained.wing construction "d" tube designs are the strongest and lightest and once sheeted do not twist whether the arf are using this feature or not I can't tell due to the covering but no mention of it is made in the ads.then there is strip airleron design.to prevent tip stalls and nasty snap rolls strip airlerons should either end about 1 " to 1 1/2 " from the wing tip the remainder being fixed or if full span to the tip the last 1" to 1 1/2 " should be tapered to half the width of the airlerons.then instead of all this aluminum sheet metal landing gear that bends or rips the bottom of the plane oit in a hard landing there is torision wire gear made from music wre and plywood.this type gear is used in wing these days but at one time was used for fuselage mounted gear .

RCKen

My Feedback: (9)

Seeing as Ed mentioned me by name I guess I need to add to the conversation. While there is absolutely nothing wrong with the planes today, I will also say that people are missing out if they don't experience some of the classic planes out there. The two that specifically come to mind are the Chaos and the Ultra Sport. As Ed said, I spend almost 4 years campaigning Great Planes to bring back the Ultra Sport. I didn't do this because I had a spare 4 years to kill!!!! I did it because the US is probably one of THE best flying planes ever designed. I throw the Chaos into that mix because it has the same wing as the US, with the fuselage being just a bit different. The Ultra Sport is one of those rare planes that everything was done just right on. It only takes one or two flights and you'll be hooked for good on it.

So where does this fit into Ed's topic? Just this, many pilots today just don't know what they are missing in these older designs. Think of it like this... If all you've ever eaten in your life is hamburger, you have no idea how good a prime cut of steak is. It's the same here. They just don't know..... Yet. I put out this challenge. Get an Ultra Sport and fly it. You'll be throwing rocks at the other planes in no time. As I said, 2 flights is all it took for me. Now I'll never be without an Ultra Sport in my hanger.

That's me 2¢ worth.

Ken

bigedmustafa

My Feedback: (2)

C'mon Ken, you had four years to kill, just admit it.

Anybody out there have a favorite classic that hasn't been mentioned so far?

yopahu

I'm new to the hobby (have been flying for three years) and learned on the Alpha 40 RTF. I think that while the classic planes give you a feel of how RC flying started, these new planes just make it so much easier to start flying. Some people who are noobs (like me) just can't put together an ARF or kit so we buy these RTF planes because we want to fly more than the time we spend in the shop.

I do not agree however that the pulse is like a veggie burger. I've seen plenty of guys at the field with this fun little arf, and I'm considering to buy it myself in the future. Maybe it's just me, but I really like what truble people whent theough to bring us th quality products of today.

Cheers

Yorek

CGRetired

My Feedback: (1)

Sure.. you want an input for a classic, how about the re-make of the Skylark 56? I have the Skylark 70 now, but originally, back in 1977, I had the old Skylark 56 and, according to my instructor at that time, it was a great flying plane.

CGr.

Gray Beard

My Feedback: (-1)

As for kits I use the 4*60 to teach with, for someone looking for something like it in an ARF I send them to H-9 for the Pulse 60, pretty much the same plane as the 4* but with some better features, I like the colors too. Classics?? In my shop I have the Ariel, Daddy Rabbit, Hots 60 and the CG Extra. You don't get much more classic then that. I lost my 60 size and 80 inch Kaos late last year, replaced them with another Bridi design, the Dirty Birdy, lost it in my first mid air. Building another Sukhoi 29 right now and have a big Bipe I scratch built, the Boeing F4B-2 from John Tanzer plans. Classic 1/2As in my shop are the Baby Turkey and Little Gasser. Do you notice a pattern here?? Not one ARF mentioned and every one of them an old design. If I had the money right now I would be stocking up on the Top Flight warbird kits, either size. Once they come out as ARFs I have noticed it only takes a couple of years before the kits are discontinued. Grab them while you can.
For me Big, you are just singing to the choir. I don't own any of the new designs and I don't own an ARF of any type. I have nothing against the new planes or ARFs, I just like the older designs and I can just buy the plans and cut my own kits. I also build planes of all sizes but have gone back to the smaller 60 size or there abouts. I'm sold on the clasics.

HighPlains

My Feedback: (1)

I don't view any of these models to be classic designs. Anything built with lite-ply misses the boat on classic by a decade or two.

A short list of classics would include:

Smog Hog, Esquire, Champ, Falcon 56, Skylark, Sr. Falcon, VK Cherokee, Astro Hog, AeroMaster, and Trainermaster. There are many others of that generation, that were all balsa, spruce and birch ply.

I've not owned a Pulse 40 yet, but have flown a couple. Fantastic sport flier, much like many of the classics I mentioned, but structurally as weak as anything else built today from lite ply and air. It would not held up to the rigors of model flight when radios didn't always work.

The School Boy and School Girl were designs by Ken Willard. Ken and I were in the same club in the bay area for a time, and we had several interesting things related to flying. He sure would have enjoyed today's ultra-small radios and electric power systems. He predicted radios would eventually get down to under 2 oz back in 1970 when most light weight systems weighed 9 to 13 oz.

Classics are some what subjective to how far back your experience reaches.

cutaway

I recently built a Kadet Mk II.

Did the wings in silk, fuselage/tail in silkspan, and used cloth hinges and just to be perverse put the whole thing together with Sigment. There's not a drop of epoxy or CA in it.

Mr Cox

I can't really relate to that, here most people that show up at the field are 50+ years and they really enjoy when someone runs old-school stuff.

Mr Cox

Modern stuff can be almost as pretty and they fly much better with the modern, lightweight, radios.