If you like to build, any one of the Chuck Cunninghams Lazy Aces are great. Two sizes, one about 60 inch span and one about 72 or 80 inch. I have both, a 91 4 stroke in the small one and a Quadra 41 in the big one. Another good choice is the Sig Astrohog bipe.

Moving from a trainer to a bipe a a second plane... forget the Hog, or you'll have a trash bag of balsa toothpicks.

I really recommend doing a more aerobatic monoplane beforee doing a bipe. You'll need the flight experience and you'll need the "stepping stone" to have a better chance of success.

The most forgiving bipe I know of is the Tiger Moth. I haven't tried one of the ARF versions... The Gee Bee .30 size kit can handle a .40 OK, and isn't terrible as a first bipe for a low time flyer. However, wing alignment is critical, and its not a good kit for someone who hasn't built a few aircraft. (and I really think it needs a different wing strut attachement system...) Once the plane is built straight, and trimmed, its almost as easy to fly as a trainer... but has the glide path of a rock when the engine dies. (typical of biplanes... Lots of drag, short glide when the prop stops.)

Another slow biplane option is the Big John. It's a very very well behaved plane that lands very slowly... probably the same behavior that didn't impress StarLancer, which is just what you need in a second plane.

(Am I right Aaron? -- what didn't grab you about the Lazy Ace? I thought it was a great answer to what theToad was looking for.)

Even built straight, Big John and Lazy Ace both look a little unnatural with their large size and slow speed. It's a little like watching a C-5 Galaxy doing touch and goes... it never looks like it's flying or landing, just like it's the world's biggest aluminum baloon floating around on the wind.

Generally, when a plane constantly looks like its flying sideways, the rudder and ailerons are cross-correct trimmed. (such as right rudder and left ailern) letting the plane hold a straight path, but at a wierd flight angle. That's correctable... www.nsrca.org has a page on proper trimming.

I'll have to dissagree with the ones who don't think the Lazy Aces fly nice. Properly trimmed, they do all the manuevers with stype and grace. You fly through the patterns, not power you way through. I also have the Phaeton 90 (with a Quadra 72 on it) and have had two of the Phaeton 40's. All great flyers and extreemly acrobatic. All will land at about walking speed, have gentle stall characteristics and, with low throttle, fly like a big trainer yet come alive with power. I now have the giant Aeromaster nearly ready to fly. If it flys as well as its little brother, it will also be a pleasure to fly. I agree that most Moths also fly well. Any bipe can be a dog if not properly set up. I have found that you need about 1.5 to 2 degrees less angle of attack in the upper wing than in the lower wing. Thrust line is also critical to prevent need for trim changes when you change throttle settings. All of mine seem to have required some minor tweaking before they flew to expectations, mostly in angle of attack of the upper wing. Just a half degree change can make a big difference.

The setup of the wings on a bipe is one of the big reasons to wait. More flying experience will tell you if its you or the aircraft setup causing the problems. Hard enough for a relative beginner to figure out if one wing is crooked by an invisible (without an incidence meter) amount.

I'll repeat the rcommendation... get a 4* or similar, delay the bipe to being the 3rd or 4th plane.

hi my name is Neil and i've been flying for about 3 years. I have built and flew all of the airplanes I've had. I decided to build a Phaton 90 about 3 months ago. this will be my first biplane and I was wondering what kind of servos you flew in your Phaton 90. I know I can probably use standard servo's but I also have access to 1/4 scale servos. do you think it would be best to use the standard servo or the 1/4 scale servo. Get back to me when you can because I'm in the final stages of construction.

Any .90 powered plane is going to need: (minimum!)

Either dual servos or one higher power (75 to 90 in-oz) servo for the ailerons.
A ball bearing "Standard" servo would get by on a slow .90 size plane... better off with a higher power servo though.
The rudder will REQUIRE a 100 in-oz or LARGER servo. You skimp on the rudder... it'll start wagging and then something's going to break. (often the whole tail section comes off.)

Throttle servo can be a sub-micro if you want... very little power needed to open and close the carb.

thanks for the info. I was also thinking about running dual standard servos on all of th control sufaces. I don't want the control surfaces to be under powered. I relize that it could cause major problems later on. Do you think that running dual servos on the rudder and the elevator would be a cure to the problem?

Confusing answer to using multiple servo for one surface:
(but... gotta cover worst case FIRST!)

There's a potential problem with running dual servos for a single control surface... the servo's postion sensing pots arent perfect, and can have the 2 servos fighting each other. Also, ANY mismatch in the control linkages will result in the servos fighting each other more and more as they deviate from the SINGLE position where thay don't have a problem..
This can strip servo gears and/or QUICKLY drain the RX battery.

There are ways around this.. spring loading the secondary servo's pushrod(s) with an R/C car sterring "servo Saver" would prevnet you from stripping gears. (but will not eliminate the high battery drain...) Futaba has just released a "match-box" which aids in matching the centering and travel of 2 to 4 servos. (I'm sure there's more...)

You can go so far as to modify a pair of servos to have both depend on ONE's positioning pot... (gut one servo and jumper wire form the other's motor to the one with no positioning circuitry.) There's a potential for problems with this solution: The "servo" with no position sensing circuitry will NOT try to hold position if its hooked to a different control horn than the other. (if the "control servo" doesn't sense the deviation... its allowed to happen.) This also means a long flexible control surface can twist, and can accumulate a significant twist over several throw cycles.

How much of a probem is normally seen when "ganging servos? Not much. Its commonly done for 1/3 scale and larger IMAC models. You just need to be aware of the potential probems, how to recognize if the problem(s) is(are) occurring and how to work around it.
Dual servos (I've seen "gang sets" of up to 5 for one rudder...) will work if set up properly.

I'll second Hubers recommendation to not try to put two servos on one surface. You are much better off just using a more powerful servo so as not to have them fighting each other. On my Phaeton90 (with a Quadra 72cc for power) I use pull-pull on both rudder and elevator and 1/4 scale servos. On the ailerons (on lower wing only but with each aileron having its own servo) I get by nicely with Futaba S148's. This has now well over 200 flights over a ten year span (probably closer to 500) with no problems. With this big engine the plane weighs 17+ pounds but lands like a feather and is quite aerobatic although the roll rate is probably slower than many would like. I did have to enlarge the rudder by about 300 % with some overhang at the tip (ala Piper Cub) in order to do knife edge.

No Question

its hog bipe. I ahve 5 bipes and have owned many more. Is the easiest one of the bunch to build and fly.
If you build it as light as possible its floats in well.

The DiBo[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]