FlyinTiger

My Feedback: (45)

Hello everyone!

I have flown both the P-51 and F-22 Progressive Trainers. I have mentored and taught on the P-51 PTS and I think there's a more practical and more fun solution out there. Staying with Hangar 9 since they make such good ARFs, and very simple to assemble, with self aligning parts and usable hardware, join the crowd in whole heartedly recommending the H9 ARROW.

Take a look at these pictures to see how I put this H9 Arrow together to make it more of an aerobatic trainer, yet it still retains its teaching qualities for a complete newbie. The plane is solid, assembled with laser cut parts and good glue. The only structural modification I had to make was to put some triangle stock under the bottom of the horizontal stabilizer to make sure it held on...others have had their stabilizer and vertical fin break off in flight.

All the stock hardware is supurb and completely usable. I used everything but the spinner and 3-bladed prop since they won't work with my motor. I LOVE how the wing slides together. I could have glued the halves together if I wanted, but there's no need with the included Ultracote pieces to just seal it up. The rubber bands won't let the wing slide apart as long as the Ultracote is applied...there's tape too if you want to use it.

The Arrow flies straight and true and lands with forgiving slowness. Most of the dihedral has been taken out of the wing, so it doesn't have the self-recovery characteristics that most flat bottom winged trainers do, so make sure to have an instructor standing next to you. When you are ready to progress to your "second plane" you have it already in front of you...just push up the power a little and you can do huge loops, hammer heads, slow rolls, inverted flight, point rolls and more! You won't get bored with this plane, even put floats under it as many others have mentioned.

Good luck! Take time to just sit and watch others and you might find you learn a lot...after flying for 18 years I still love to sit, watch, talk and learn more about this wonderful hobby.[&:]

FLY SAFE.

Showtime100

Funny you mentioned this. I ordered a P-51 PTS a few weeks ago. While I was waiting I went to the airfiled with my instructor to get some stick time on his trainer. Another guy there had an Arrow and after witnessing that thing fly I knew I had to get one. The P-51 will stay on the bench getting mods while I learn on the Arrow with my instructor. The arrow was very easy to assemble and I also put the triangle stock at the base of the horizontal stablizer.

broke_n_bummin

Ummmm ... Your first paragraph doesn't make any sense. "Staying with Hangar 9 since they make such good ARFs...". The P51 and F22 ARE Hangar 9. Secondly, they weren't marketed as practical trainers. They were marketed as something that doesn't look like a typical trainer. As far as the hardware package, I saw nothing wrong with either of them ... Typical H9 package .. pre bent rods, clevices and horns, everything was there.
It's like going to the grocery store and choosing between paper and plastic bags. No one wants the old square looking paper bags anymore, even though they are more environment friendly and practical. People want to fly something that looks like what the old timers and seasoned vets are flying.
I tought my 12 year old last winter on the mustang. He's been flying my old Tecate bipe this summer, and now he thinks he's ready for 3D. I had a ball with the F22, although I would concider it a little fast for a trainer, it might be just right for a fast learner.

763ersma27

I have the F-22 PTS, and its by no means a trainer, it flys very fast, even with the flaps down, and lands fast, and i have to fly mine on duel rates 50% alaerons to keep it from turning to fast for my likeing.

Hircflyer

Ya'no when you stop and look really good......all the really good trainers are based on the Bridi line of trainers. Thirtyfive years and the good designs really don't change much. The man was a genius.

Easy to build. and great fliers. The Bridi .60 size taught many folks how to fly.

pupmeister

I see people attacking the PTS trainers all the time and I think people really do not understand what the point is of them.

Any body who has spent a fair bit of time at the field would have noticed at least one person arriving at the field with an aircraft such as a mustang or extra for their first attempt at training on a RC aircraft, just to be turned away by a instructor at the field and be told to go and buy a proper trainer before they can start flying at the club. Of these people I have only seen one person return to the club with a trainer, with most people I suspect leaving feeling that the instructors and club are to arrogant and that this is not a supportive environment that they would want to learn to fly in. (I often wonder how many of these planes then end up in a pile of toothpicks when these people try to prove that they know better than the people at the club)

I think Horizon just saw this gap in the market and decide to exploit it, I do not think that they have created the market. I think that they found that the PTS mustang was a lot more successful than they had anticipated and then rushed the F-22 to the market to ensure that they maintained their lead in the market.

Having said all of thus I do agree that they are not the best aircraft for a beginner. I think they had to make to many compromises to achieve both the scale effect and still make it possible to be used as a trainer, albeit not a good trainer. It was these compromises that put me off one as a second plane and I think I made a much better choice with the Pulse XT (also from Hanger 9).

Unfortunately there will always be people that will go out and buy aircraft without properly investigating what is available and visiting a RC airfield first to see what is recommended to give them the best chance for success. At least if they purchase one of the PTS planes, they do have some chance of learning to fly the first aircraft that they purchased.

And finally for all the people that like to point out that the other manufactures such as Hobbico do not have a equivalent aircraft to the PTS and this is because they have some form of conscious, I am almost willing to put money on it that the only reason that they do not have a similar model is because they have not been able to develop an acceptable design yet.

Cheers
Pupmeister

jetmech05

I wouldn't turn away a student that had a PTS, but I'd tell him the pit falls.
these aren't the best trainers.
Marketing a Mustang as a trainer, that guy can sell ice machines to eskimos

pupmeister

That is what I mean. If a pupil has a PTS Mustang that looks all nice and shiny, most instructors will be willing to train them (sometimes begrudgingly). However if they pitch up with a scratch build or any other type of Mustang such as the Great Planes ARF type, the instructor would turn them away because they know that although it is possible to train a person on any type of aircraft the chances of success rapidly approaches zero with the advanced types of aircraft.

I seriously investigated one of these before starting to fly this time around, but luckily I studied posts on RCU and visited my local club first and I think I made a much better choice to go for a traditional high wing trainer. I would also seriously advice any prospective pilot against the PTS planes as first choice. But like I said before if the person decides to buy one of the PTS planes they at least have a chance of successfully learning to fly a RC aircraft, and I for one think that Hanger 9 should be applauded for seeing this shortcoming/gap in the the market and developing something that could successfully fill it.

Cheers
Pupmeister

da Rock

Turn away anyone who shows up with a PTS?

Not going to happen.

Last fall, a guy shows up with a Funtana. He wants someone to teach him to fly. We had a great time. And he's flying today.
I've buddy boxed at least a couple of P51 PTSs. They're actually pretty good trainers. It really does work as one and most certainly hits the bullseye in the marketplace. No design flaws.
The experience with the Raptor is because I'm teaching the guy to fly who showed up with it and the desire to learn to fly. And using it as the trainer.

But the guy who showed up with the Raptor expected it to do what it's advertised to do. He was betting half a thousand dollars on it. It was sold to him to provide a "no brainer" experience with the engine, as all those restricted adjustments, already broken in EVOS claim. It was supposed to fly as a trainer with all the gadgets that were proven on the P51. It was sold to the guy as a trainer. He spent $500 buying a sure thing. It wasn't. That's advertising. Sometimes advertising is close to fraud.

The gear design is just plain wrong. It's actually fairly easy to correct the improperly done mains. While doing that it doesn't take much to make another improvement that cures another problem with the Raptor I flew. Make the gear taller to accomodate props that are readily available and better suit the engine. And to keep any props you run from cutting grass. The F22 I flew was absolutely marginal with it's issue prop and absolutely flew better with a more suitable prop. The problems with the airplane are not just minor. They're not cured with some minor tuning that was overlooked at the factory.

Hangar9 sells excellent, excellent models. This Raptor one isn't. They need to correct the gear and do a better job with the prop/engine.

jetmech05

if you notice the PTS is a semi scale mustang anyway. I wonder why they cant come up with a different "paint job" for different sized airplanes. instead of one for all

A6Ordie

I think the PTS Mustang flies fine. Its a little tougher to land with all its contraptions on and its a tail dragger low wing so its isn't goint to float in and keep as steady as a high wing trike gear. I would have to say that its not the plane or the student, its the instructor. If you have someone that is a good instructor they can teach you to fly anything. Sims help a lot too. Not the same as actually flying, but gives you some stick feel. The Mustang PTS ARF is comparable to any high wing ARF in price. With the package you get a much better radio than you do with any other RTF even the Alpha and Arrow.

Heck, buy the PTS. Either the Mustang or F22 then get a WM Skyraider Mach I which is 70 bucks and flies fantasitic. Has a semi symetrical wing also for aerobatics. Put your engine and gear in that and learn how to fly. Then you got a nice 2nd plane and a radio that will last more than a month or 2.

Your gonna crash it anyway, we all do. Just go out with style

[AKA]StraferX

I learned on the P-51 PTS and love it. I would recomend it to anyone. It flies like a baby. The only problem that I generaly encounter is that its hard to see sometimes.. coming straight at you its like a thin black line. I have since flown several other trainers. like the LT 40, hang-9 Arrow and telemaster.. yep they fly nice but I like my P-51 much better and I have found it to be much more versatile.

w8ye

My Feedback: (16)

I agree that the P-51 TPS is a nice starter plane but silver is hard to see in the air.

Firebird25

This year the H9 F-22 PTS was a raffle prize at our club. With it came a club membership and training. A young boy 11 or 12 won it and he showed up with grandpa and the plane. Unfortunately, the maiden flight showed the structural / design short comings in the plane. It crashed after lifting about 4 ft from the ground due to what appeared to be insufficient power [3 bladed prop]. The front part of the fuselage broke off despite the reinforcements that had been installed. Actually, it's a very nice looking plane that with a two bladed propeller and modified [longer] landing gear and properly installed reinforcements in the fuse would make a good trainer.

RCVFR

My Feedback: (7)

That is a shame, sorry to hear it crashed. Too bad there wasn't a competent pilot at the controls. [&o]

Firebird25

It had little to do with the abilities of the pilot [instructor, a guy who can fly literally anything], but more with the grossly underpowered characteristics of bird due to the 3 bladed prop. All control surfaces checked out as correct when on the ground and it balanced correctly as well. It just fell parallel to the ground and broke in two parts. I felt sorry for the kid. Later learned that his father bought him a regular trainer and Horizon said they would replace the broken fuselage.

MinnFlyer

My Feedback: (4)

I reviewed both the Mustang PTS and the Raptor PTS and I found the Raptor to be an even better flier than the Mustang. I had no issues with the PTS Prop, although I was flying from a paved runway which could make a big difference. In any case, I think that prop should go. It has a good theory behind it, but in reality, it makes throttle management way more important that a beginner needs to deal with.

All-in-all, I agree with pupmeister's comments. The PTS planes are not the best trainers, but they can be the best trainer for someone who just insists on not buying a typical trainer.

CGRetired

My Feedback: (1)

We, our club that is and our instructors, won't turn away someone that shows up with a PTS trainer. What we WILL do, is if they ask BEFORE they buy, we will definitely suggest one of the many trainers that RCKen has put on his posting about recommended trainers.

I bought a Hobbico Super Star RTF Trainer a while back, and use it as a club trainer. I try to bring it with me when I go the field just in case someone shows up that may be interested in RC but is not quite sure. So, I put him/her up with the buddy box and let them get a taste of what is to come if they do decide to fly. Then I will make my recommendations, and go from there.

As MinnFlyer said, though, if they insist, well, we can go with that, but it isn't the best of choices out there.

We had one guy show up with two beautifully warbirds, one was a real nicely built P-51 and the other was a Corsair F4U. Both were jems and were very well put together. We admired them, but did NOT fly them. He had never flown RC before and wanted us to teach him on one of those. It didn't happen. We convinced him to buy a trainer, and made recommendations, which he followed. He realized what we were trying to do after a while, and then after a year, he still not yet flown either one of those two. Perhaps sometime soon, but he admits that he is not ready for that challenge.

CGr

RedWing

My Feedback: (4)

Is the Mustang PTS better in the wind?
My problem with both my sons is that they don't like to fly the trainer in the wind. If I had plane that better handled the wind, they might fly more.

Bill

MinnFlyer

My Feedback: (4)

Yes, it handles wind better than a regular trainer. And if they have already learned the basics, it would be a very good step-up.

Missileman

The PTS trainers have been an ongoing issue that has been discussed to no end on this board.
I am in the school (and not alone) that the P-51 is a terrible trainer and yes I did own one.
Yes, some people will learn to fly with them AND some people will learn to fly on just about any airplane BUT some people will fail with the PTS.
What kind of taste will that leave for them of this hobby?
I agree with the visibility issues of the P-51. That is what cost me mine.

RedWing

My Feedback: (4)

Thanks MinnFlyer.
I think it would be a good plane for them but I have never flown one.

Bill

opjose

Either it was not properly tuned, flown incorrectly ( e.g. stalled too soon just after lift off with no recovery height ) or improperly set up.

The default 3 bladed prop is meant to keep the plane flying rather slowly, but that assumes that the flaps are down, and all of the training aids are left on.

Remove some of the training aids, but leave the default prop on, and you are courting disaster.

With the training aids in place and the default prop, the plane does very well, and is very gentle during approaches and landings.

IMHO the PTS's biggest problem is it's typical tail dragger left yaw tendancy which will throw a beginner.

With a good instructor at the help, using a buddy box, it's a great starter plane...

It took me from novice to certified in three trips to the field.

Insanemoondoggie

The PTS P51 is a is a great concept. I own a stripped down ARF, and have been teaching 3 others to fly on theirs. What I have learned so far , is take the air brakes on the landing gear off , and don`t be afraid to put a 11x5 ,two blade prop on it , for teaching.
Also the throws are very minimal, which make it slower to get in trouble , but also slower to recover. IMHO it is better to have every control surfaces , in the second hole on the control arm. Rudder, elevator and ailerons. And get an instructor that is O.K with the PTS concept .
Just my 2 cents, even tho they say 2 cents , is not worth 2 cents , any more, Hmmmm? Now how the heck that happen ?

N429EM

In the original post, the author mentions H9's well made ARFs...
I am currently assembling the replacement F22 Raptor PS ARF from H9. As was the original, NONE of the control rod tubes are in straight alignment with the servo and control horn. The first Raptor was the same way. This is disappointing. It seems to create a binding in the control rods, and I don't want to damage the servos or slow them down. It's taking longer than expected to assemble. Again.

The Hobbico NexSTAR I assembled, and trained on, did not have this condition.

However, in H9's defense, they had already made the appropriate adjustments to the area of the structure that was breaking on hard landings. And, even extended the extra strength a bit farther fore and aft, by using ply that was not cut with the holes to lighten the plane.

Looking forward to finishing and getting this bird in the air.

EJ