Hi Guys.
I have been reading in the forum about the new p51 Mustang that has been brought out and titled "Trainer" a few people have replied to the forum and said that this is great, low wings give a more stable landing in cross winds than a high wing trainer, What I would like to know is, I have been given a 74" wingspan Seagull AT-6 Harvard, would this be just a good an aircraft to learn on or will I be trying to attempt the impossible, it is all brand new ARTF.
Regards
Tankie1rtr

G'day Mate,
IMHO, forget the Harvard as a trainer, or take a few garbage bags to the field, & a camera, so we can see the results.
You need a high wing, stable plane, that will give you some chance of survival, provided you have an INSTRUCTOR to help.
If you don't, you will need lots of money for new planes & equipment.

[color=#FF0099]tankie,
Alan is correct. don't worry about the crosswind landings so much. first you've got to get airborne (and keep it up there). a high wing trainer is going to be much more stable and forgiving in the air (considering that we all overcompensate on the sticks at first) and will have more of a tendency to "right" itself. Learn crosswind landings with a high wing plane and you will ace the low wing! good luck. Oh, and don't forget the Instructor (necessary and will save you money in the long run)
Bev

The P-51 you are refering to is not an ordinary P-51, it is designed to be easier to fly with added stuff to make it more tame. AND if you read a thread about it surely you saw negatives as well. Not everyone thinks the P-51 PTS is a good trainer.

I don't like the P-51 PTS...first off the landing gear is a waste...etc etc....even though the AT-6 Texan was a trainer it doesn't make a good RC trainer....You can be taught to fly on anything provided you and your instructor have the time....The easiest way is with a high wing trainer,like the LT-40

I tought my 12 year old on a P51 PTS and had no trouble. I would suggest putting the flaps on a servo and leave off the wheel "brakes". I believe it is just as stable as an LT-40, Avistar, Nexstar,Superstar, Stinger or Kadet.
The problem with the At-6 is that even though it was designed to be a trainer, the RC version is scale and won't fly like an RC trainer. That doesn't mean you won't be able to learn on it ... it'll just be a little harder.
You will get a lot of negative responses about anything that doesn't look like a classic style box looking trainer. Especially from the "set in their ways" old timers and the newbies that either found a new bandwagon to jump on or want to be just like them. There's not an ARF on the market that doesn't have their faults either in design, build, or just a really crappy hardware package. The P51 trainer is a little heavier than some of the conventional trainers, but it has a large wing area, plenty of dihedral, and flaps. The landing gear sticks out in front of the leading edge of the wing to eliminate noseovers, the wing droops reduce tip stalls, and there's plenty of room inside the plane to move things around to get your CG right (presuming the ARF version and your engine and radio). If you'll notice, most of the negative replies by people that don't like the plane are a matter of personal preference. Most don't like the landing gear, or think they should have included more hardware (ARF version), or they had trouble with the Evo engine, or the prop stinks. It's not like you have to tear it apart to fiberglass the gear block because the landing gear keeps breaking off (Kyosho Flip 3D, H9 Funtana), or it has a weak wing spar or foam wing, or there's a problem with the tail feathers falling off...
No, I don't work for Hangar 9, but I don't think it's fair for people to condemn something just because they don't like the way something looks. If you notice, most of the planes you buy have pictures of them on the outside...

I trained my son on the P51 PTS @ 9 years old, He is going to turn 11 in march & the P51 is still going strong. I still think it is a very good trainer if you have someone to help you & when you start flying alone you can turn it into a good sport flyer. I agree with broke_n_bummin in the fact that most don't like it because it is out of the norm of what they think a trainer is. I would like to add that I would get the ARF & add my own motor. The one in the RTF will fly if fine but a little more HP wouldnt hurt & you can always throttle back a little.

Hi.
I think people are getting a little confused, i was enquiring about the P51 Mustang being classed as a trainer, I have been given a new T6 Texan,6 foot wingspan and i was asking if it would be capable of being used as a trainer, as this has a low wing configuration as well, I am new to R/C Aircraft, I have flown full scale aircraft, Chipmunk, Tucano, and I wondered if this would help me in flying models, or is it a completely different game altogether.

I have never seen so many people always recommend an instructer. I have a 12 year old son that showed alot of interest in flying, so instead of letting him fly my machines I bought him a Nexstar and downloaded the sim program that is included and told him that when he could take off fly around and land Just to get him used to the plane coming at him use of the controls, we would head to the back forty and I would buddy box him until I felt he was ready to solo. The first time we went out he did everything, fueled it up, checked the controls, etc. I got ready to taxi it out for him he said no dad I can handle it. I told him give it a shot and I would take over if I noticed any trouble. Picture perfect takeoff, I could not believe it. He made a few low and slow flybys, did a couple of loops and rolls and brought it in for an almost perfect landing. Made me proud So I don't feel an instructer is all that inportant, but it would not hurt to have one there just in case.

Tankie

An AT6 isn't the perfect choice as a trainer. It was a trainer back in its day as a full size aircraft, but even back then it wasn't as easy to fly as a Aeronca Champ or a Piper Cub (aka High wing trainer ). If you have a good instructor and they were ok with the idea then you could give it a shot. As you already know from flying REAL aircraft, flying slower and having an aircraft that isn't as twitchy so you as the student can correct things as they happen has its benefits. A faster twitchier plane is just going to take a little longer to get used to and have more of a chance of taking a dirt nap. I learned from a simulator mostly. Was able to get the muscle memory and get a good idea of how things were going to go. I Buddy Boxed once and then just started flying on my own with a low wing trainer (WM Mach II Skyraider) I've crashed one due to losing orientation and being to low, but got another and haven't crashed since. Crashing is going to happen

Flying a model is different than the real thing, because of when they are flying at you everything is reversed. Plus no stall warning, no guages, just feel and that takes experience.

Are you getting just an airframe? If so then just shelve it for a bit and go with a less expensive trainer and fly the covering off it then transfer the goods to the AT6. Just one mans opinion.

Good Luck,

Hi Dave
Thank you so much for your help, I am going to do as a lot of people have advised and go for a trainer, there have been a lot of rave reviews on the new Hangar 9 P51 PT Trainer, although it is a low wing it has been produced specifically as a trainer and as you progress you remove little bitds from the aircraft like speed brakes attached to the oleos, and wingtips, what do you think about the Mustang trainer, have you read any of the reviews.

Regards
John

I trained a couple of students this year on the PTS P51. First thing I did was take the airbrakes off the landing gear. They make the plane fly like a brick with wings. With the droops , 3 blade prop and the flaps set at 1/2 inch , it is still plenty slow enough and the prop acts like a brake when the throttle is pulled back.
The hardest thing for the students , was the take off . Set up on low rates , the rudder is just not to effetive till you get some air over it. They also have a weak spot . A hard landing or a good bounce will pull the langing gear blocks loose. Pretty easy fix. But I also believe they land better than a highwing.
I bought the ARF a few months ago, and installed a OS .46AX . , no training gear . The throws were maxed out and the things a screamer . Not the most areobatic , knife edge ,Cuban 8s , loops , rolls are o.k. and high speed low passes are a blast.
Not a bad plane for the money.

The direct and accurate answer to your first question above is a T-6, most any will make a lousy trainer and considerably increase the time for you to reach any given level of skills.

Most classic full scale trainers do indeed make for very poor RC trainers and this includes any Cubs that are anwhere near scale. If you insist consider this: The AT-6 was 'not' a primary trainer period. It was an advanced trainer intended to be used only after the student progressed through primary and basic trainer (types) steps.

Now to your second question above the answer is no that experiance will not directly help you other than knowledge of how an airplane flys. Indeed it likey will increase the time to acheive any given level of skill. Full scale pilots fairly consistantly take the most time and are among the more difficult RC students on an average.

I am not just talking out the hat as a very active full scale instructor in fixed wing, single and multi, instrument and rotors as well as gliders since about sixty four untill my retirement ten years ago. In addition I have also mentored many (I hate the word instructor) into the RC world since well before the development of proportional RC.

Excluding of course knowledge of FAR's, navigation and Weather it is an easier task to train an experianced RC pilot on full scale than to train an experianced full scale pilot on RC.

To some up the T-6 thing I beleve especially since the ARF age is the overpowering compulsion to not be seen with a trainer but instead use the most inappropriate types possible for a first airplane, is in fact the number one reason (agine my opinion) for a very high failure rate and broken dreams of RC flight.

All of the above is only just my opinion

John

Since I certainly don't have the experience in the civil instruction world that JB has, I will only use one statement of his as actually to reinforce his other comments that I do agree with.
The USAF did at one time start pilot trainees right out in the T-6. That program was in the 1950 era or around there. The program did not last for long, maybe several years until it was decided to return to some 40+/- hours in a lesser machine. USAF again tried the "Go fast NOW" theory when in the late '50s, early '60s they started the newbie in the T-37, twin jet "TRAINER". Again the initial wash-out rate soared, and the USAF soon returned to assuring trainees had some 40 hours in the trainer -- whatever it was -- like a Cessna 150 type. I went through the T-37 initially, and I was glad that I was already a jet Navigator-Bombardier as I could work in the cockpit with helmet and oxygen mask, all strapped in plus I could read and understand Flight Manuals. So many brand new folks could not take all that at once including being new in a fast-thinking environment. Pre-solo washout was around 30% with the overall washout rate being about 50%.

Back to RC: I don't care to instruct a newbie using some model that is going to take more than some 15-20 flights before I determine that he is safe enough to turn loose on the club's flight-line. While several have been declare "solo" in my club using that P-51 "Trainer", I have not witnessed anyone that I think is safe until they get yelled at a time or two due to being almost right on someone else's station. [X(] I simply prefer a better Trainer, and one where the newbie and I can work not only to get solo qualified but to also be aware enough to be safe for all those out there on the flight-line that are focusing on their own models and not having to watch the new guy.

All in all, that is MY TIME you are using to learn to fly. YOU will be required to USE it well, as I so direct.

Now, MR. REAL PILOT, I been there, done that, a bit myself including instructing in both T-33 and T-38 aircraft along with some years in the B-737, 727, DC-8 and DC-10, along with several lesser types. My advice to YOU is to stand up, use right hand to remove chip off left shoulder, then use left hand to remove chip off right shoulder. [>:] Find a good instructor and with a good conventional Trainer, learn the orientation and how to "round-out", feeling the control pressures from OUTSIDE the cockpit.

How do I know that? Well fellow, as a long time competition modeler in CL Stunt and some classes of FF, I did not start RC until after I became an airline pilot. Yep, nice self-built Trainer, and off-to-war all by myself. Taxied around out in a deserted area, then off into wild blue yonder. About 2 minutes later I picked up the parts, rebuilt it, got some help at a county field, and soloed (no buddy cord back then) all same day. It can be done but good help REALLY HELPS!

First of all whilst thanking you for your constructive comments, may I berate you on your comment of removing "The Chips" of both my shoulders, for your information I do not have ANY CHIPS on either of my shoulders, and although you may be a qualified instructor on aircraft, I find any instructor that judges a person (aspecially on one posting) must be either a bad instructor who does not get to know the real pupil before he makes a judgement and therefore psycologically put the pupil on a negative footing, or an instructor who thinks that he is full of his own wind, I find your implication that I have a chip on each shoulder very offensive when you do not even know me, I posted comments asking for help and advise NOT to be personally insulted. as for "Mr Real Pilot" I did use the wrong wording, I should have wrote "Full Scale aircraft" and I am NOT a pilot nor have I said nor given the Indication I am, I just said that I have flown Full Scale Aircraft, (I worked for the Royal Air Force as a flight line mechanic) I have had many a tutorial flight as is the case in the British RAF. as for my remarks about Instructors, well I do know what I am talking about, I was an Instructor on Cheiftain Main Battle Tanks for 14 yrs and I would never judge or berate a pupils character or ability without knowing them first, it only causes negative feeling and undermines a pupils own ability. On another note I thank you for your constructive comments.

He Has Spoken.

You asked for commentary on the Hanger 9 P-51 PTS. There was an entire thread on that a few months back (maybe even last year). The P-51 PTS has a number of flaws, primarily associated with poor quality control in the assembly process. I have maidened three of these, and all three had the same issues.

First and foremost, the landing gear blocks are not properly glued into the wings. This requires stripping back the covering and regluing the landing gear blocks.
Second, the cowl is not properly trimmed around the throttle. The stop for the low speed idle bumps against the cowl when the throttle is advanced, causing the low speed needle to be set to the full rich position. Low end tuning on the supplied EVO 46 is consquently screwed up every time you advance the throttle (until the cowl is trimmed properly).
The three bladed prop is a very poor match for the engine. It barely develops enough thrust to get the plane airborn, particularly if you're flying off grass. Ditch the three bladed prop and replace it with an APC 11X5. OK, its not as scale lookng, but when its spinning, you don't see it anyway.
Finally, as an instructor, I find it to be a very poor platform for learning. It flys like a pig with the training aids on, and is way too sensitive with out them. With the training aids, it promotes overcontrolling the sticks, and without them, its too hard for the beginner to fly.

If you absolutely must go with the mustang, you'll learn. But a high wing trainer will be easier and quicker to learn on, and will provide many years of enjoyment, especially if you keep in mind that trainers can be modified for many different functions. Their low wing loading, inherent stability, and inexpensive airframes make them ideally suited for addition of things like cameras, bomb drops, streamers, snow skis, floats,etc. They can be a real hoot at fun flys, and eventually become beloved "beaters", coming out of the hanger when other, more expensive planes get to stay home. And as you progress, hopefully to teaching some other niaive soul how to fly, they are great for providing demonstration flights.

Brad

The main reason I`m self taught.

I have a friend that went to a flying field in central Ohio north east of Columbus to learn to fly. They were extremely picky. Even after he soloed, they would not let him fly without an instructor present and that the instructor inspect and fly the plane first. Then he could only fly when one of the cheeses didn't want to fly.

Needless to say, he doesn't fly at the snobbish club anymore. He is a very good pilot now with adequate self confidence and ability that he learned with us at our field. He flies whenever he wants to.

He had shown up at our field not with his trainer but with a new Uproar 60 with a Tower Hobbies 75 and a new computer radio. A couple flights on the buddy box, a few little transmitter fine programming exponential adjustments and he was on his own.

Hi Brad
Thanks for a great feedback to my quesion, its wonderful to find people who have the time and patience to speak and explain to us newbies who are ignorant but only because of our lack of knowledge. unlike some, well you have really and truly put me off the Mustang PTS, I have made a final decision made on the feedback that I have had from all you helpfu guys, I am going to get a highwing trainer, pref 62/70" wingspan, and really get to town with that, but before I go down that track I am going to purchase a phoenix flight sim and sit and practice some. this should give me a basic knowledge of the sticks and reverse operation, then when I have had a year or so on this I will approach my Texan and with some luck I may have some good experience. Once again Thank You for your wonderful feedback.

Regards
John

When I started back into R/C I got on the Real Flight simulator for a year. It sure helped when I got to the field the first time. I had the left - right bit down pat.

Hi.
Thank You for your post, It just goes to show that these sort of people who are "Well and Truly Up Them selves" and think that THEY are the only "One True Flying God" are so ignorant to the fact that people like myself who know nothing and am really ignorant to the hobby, because of the lack of knowledge rely on the people like you great guys to advise us, that is why we join the forum, and people like myself trully thank you for taking the time to impart advice and knowledge, its just a shame that you get people who think they are so qualified on eveything that overcomes the pull of gravity, that they can try to be sarcastic and snide. To all the guys who have given me replies and help. I Thank You.

Regards
John

The big Harvard you already have calls for a .90-1.20 engine, and the weight estimate of 4.5 to 6.0 kg makes me think it will really need a 1.20

There are no trainers, that I know of, that can handle a 1.20 engine.

The SIG LT-40 (kit or ARF) has around 70 inch wing span and only requires a .40 or .46 engine. Most other trainers this size require a .60 size engine.

Another popular trainer, that's available in the UK and the US, is the Hangar 9 Alpha:
http://www.sussex-model-centre.co.uk...xd.asp?id=4757
This one is the 40 size with 63 inch wing span. There is also a 60 size that's about 70 inches but I didn't see it on this web site. I'm not very familiar with UK vendors so this is the only one I found. Sussex has several pages of trainers.

I am not a very good pilot, yet, but I really enjoy flying. Once you go up for the first time, you'll either be hooked or totally not interested in continuing. There doesn't seem to be any middle ground. If you're hooked you'll really start collecting planes. I have 4 flyable, two under construction, and two stashed kits. I had to switch from ARF models to kits to slow down the growth of the collection.

Hi.
Thank you for your mail, I am going to spend some time on a flight sim then get a high wing trainer, when I have spent some time on the two, about a year, I will consider getting my Texan out and giving it a go, hopefully I should have gained some experience by then, that is if, as you stated I get hooked on it.
Regards
John

tankie1rtr
Go here & read about the PTS P51 from people who actually own one. There are alot of people including myself that really like this plane & a few that don't. It's just good reading. New Hanger 9 p-51 mustang **Trainer?!?** over 4000 reply's. I just thought it would be good research for you.