i have never owned a plane, just trucks and cars. what would a good trainer nitro kit. i dont have a clue to which one to get??

I just bought the Tower Trainer 40 ARF. Has lots of good reviews and only $70 which makes it easy if you wrap it around a tree. Combine that with a Magnum .46 motor for $70 and you have a nice setup.

http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin...?&I=LXCAS2&P=0

There are just too many to name so a list was made.
Look here
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_4537845/tm.htm

There are more good choices than bad ones. Basicly you want a high wing trainer for your first plane. I started with a Lanier Explorer 40 ARF and I would not recomend that plane. It took a lot to get it to fly correctly and it was very frustrating. I finally soloed with a 4*60 after totaling out the trainer. Last year, a guy I know gave me a Sig KADET SENIORITA that had been badly bashed. I put it back to stock and have flown it a few times. It is almost a penility free plane. Very easy to fly.

There is one other plane, although not listed as a trainer, the Sig Rascal 40 ARF. It is a very pleasing plane to look at and it is also a great flyer. The big difference between it and the standard trainer is the landing gear. Most all trainers are tike gear where the Rascal is a tail drager. Depending on who you talk to, that makes it harder to handle on the ground, but in my opinion, it is the only way to go.

Last, make sure you get an instructor to teach you. The penitlies for a screw up are severe on a plane. A good instructor will make sure you have the skills to solo and give you good advise on setup and such. Most every club has a few instructors to train you right. Without an instructor, you first flight is usually only seconds long. Some pick up right away, we had one guy that soloed within two hours of his first flight. Then ther guys like me who took several months and a couple planes. Even the guy who soloed so quickly would not have lasted so long on his first flight. He is a retired Marine jet jocky so he has the basics in hand when he started. It was just getting use to not setting in the seat when flying that took him a bit to get the hang of. Each guy has their own learning curve. In any case, the curve will be steeper with a good instructor.

Don

my uncle is big time into these planes. i dont get to talk to him very much so hopfully he will help me some. i just wanted a price rang to get into flying.

I've put together a list of planes that make good trainers and second planes. All of them on the list are proven planes that are well suited for successfully letting students learn to fly, or advance to a second plane. Check out the list here
[link=http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_4537845/tm.htm] Looking for a trainer- what's available. (Updated 12-20-07) [/link]

All of the kits on this list were selected not only because they are good trainers, but also because they are good kits for the first time builder. Take a look at the list and I'm sure you'll find something that suits you. If you asked me for one in particular, I would pick the Sig LT-40. It's a great building plane and and outstanding flying plane. Plus I have a build thread on this plane that you can reference as you build the kit. You can find that build thread here:
[link=http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_3439708/tm.htm]Pay It Forward build thread!! LT-40 build.[/link]

Hope this helps

Ken

As you shop, remember that an airplane "kit" is a box of sticks that needs to be glued together, sanded, and covered. An "ARF" is a mostly built and covered airplane that simply requires final assembly and installation of an engine and radio system. An airplane designated as RTF generally comes with an engine and radio system installed and merely requires minimal final assembly.

Building and covering your own trainer aircraft is a great way to go if you feel up to the task. You will be much more familiar with the structural and mechanical details of your airplane when you first attempt to fly it, and fixing it in the event of a mishap will be relatively simple. Building a kit is actually more costly than assembling an ARF or RTF airplane. Kits don't include items like wheels, fuel tanks, or covering that will have to be purchased seperately.

Many pilots aren't experienced at model building and prefer to focus first on the piloting aspect of our hobby (as opposed to the mechanical or building aspects). These pilots prefer to start with an ARF or RTF airplane and will later learn building and mechanical skills later after basic flight training. This approach is fine for folks without an interest in building and/or no room or time for kit assembly.

As for a specific recommendation, I'd throw in a plug for the Sig Kadet LT-25 kit. It's an easy-to-build laser cut kit with a slab-sided fuselage and a .63" wingspan. It also comes set up as a tail-dragger by default. I like tail-draggers on grass runways and tricycle gear for paved runways. Tail draggers aren't particularly difficult to fly off of pavement, but tricycle gear can be tough to fly through grass unless it's mowed frequently.

The LT-25 is as large as most .40-size trainers, but can be powered by a much less thirsty .25~.32 size 2-stroke. This plane would be a great first trainer, a great first building project, and a pleasure to fly in general.

Good luck, and good shopping!

Hey guys,
I'm debating between a semi-symmetrical "advanced" trainer with futaba 4yf radio, and a basic trainer with a 5ch dsm2 radio. I feel like the 5ch programmable radio will allow for a sweeter second plane for when I get bored, but the semisym wing will help me not to get bored so fast. Any suggestions?

Can you do barrel rolls with a trainer?

Yes, you can do barrel rolls with a trainer. With regard to which radio is best to start out with, you might be surprised at how useful a basic 4-channel sport radio will be even years from now when you're using it with sport planes, as a buddy box, or as a controller for a PC flight sim. You'll eventually want a more advanced computerized radio, but you don't need one right out of the gate.

I personally trained and solo'd on a Nexstar Select RTF a few years ago. Since that time, I've built and flown a Tower Trainer .40 MkII ARF with an O.S. .46 FX. More recently, I helped a good friend purchase an Avistar Select RTF from a gentleman who bought it then decided he didn't have time to fly it. We have flown the Avistar as my friend's primary trainer with the O.S. .40 LA and Futaba SkySport 4 radio.

The Tower Trainer .40 MkII ARF is, in my opinion, most likely supplied by the same factory that makes the Nexstar and Avistar ARFs for Hobbico. I am fairly certain of this because the wheels, fuel tank, and engine mount supplied with my Tower Trainer .40 MkII ARF were the identical parts supplied with my Nexstar Select RTF. I think it's important to note this, so that a prospective buyer can rest assured that all three planes will feature similar design and quality characteristics.

Having flown all three of them in the role of primary training aircraft (one as student and two as instructor), I am also comfortable comparing the flying characteristics of all three airframes and making general comparisons between the three.

Of the three airframes, two suffer from similar covering problems while a thirds seems less prone to trouble. All three are covered with Monokote, and the primary covering job is well done on all three aircraft. For some reason, however, keep trim pieces stuck down to the Nexstar or to the Tower Trainer .40 MkII seems like a full time job while the Avistar seems less prone to these kinds of problems. Window decals and stripe pieces will peel off Nexstars and Tower Trainers like Chaquita stickers peel off bananas. Why Avistars seem to hold up better I have no idea, but they do.

Based on my experiences, I have found planes covered with Ultracote tend to be less succeptable than Monokote covered ARFs to bubbling and sagging as the seasons change and easier to smooth out with heat gun or iron. If top quality covering and low maintenence requirements for the ARFs covering are a priority, then trainers from Goldberg or Hangar 9 should be considered.

Again, with regard to flying characteristics, one stands out from the others. I found both the Tower Trainer .40 MkII and the Avistar to have very good consistent and neutral handling characteristics in a wide variety of wind and weather conditions. The Nexstar is easier than the other two to land for a novice, having more of a classic "floating" landing charactistic than the other two designs. This floatiness comes at the price of windy flying characteristics. The long wing chord and longer wing span of the Nexstar make it more succeptable to wind buffetting than the other two and it can be more difficult for a student to turn in breezy conditions.

The Myth of Semi-Symmetrical Wings on Trainers

This opinion is going to ruffle some feathers as it tends to challenge popular opinion. Based on my trainer experiences, I believe that shallow versus deep dihedral is far more important to a trainer wing's "sport handling" characteristics than whether that wing is flat-bottomed or semi-symmetrical. When comparing trainer wings, it appears to me that "semi-symmetrical" is simply a fancy marketing term for "not quite completely flat bottomed. Comparing the wing rib of an Avistar to the wing rib of a Tower Trainer .40 MkII will show you how really small the difference between the two designs is. I'm not suggesting that a semi-symmetrical design doesn't contribute at all to improved aerobatic characteristics on a trainer, only that the contribution of that factor (flat or semi) alone isn't enough to automatically rule one out over the other.

When I built my Tower Trainer .40 MkII ARF, I wanted it to fly a little sportier than the most basic of trainers. The ARF manual recommends building the wing with about 5 1/2 inches of dihedral. I did a little extra sanding on my wing joiner to flatten mine out, and it came out at about 3 3/4 inches of dihedral. When I flew the plane, I was surprised to find that my flat-bottomed wing trainer was as aerobatic and could fly in the wind as good as Avistars in the club could.

This caused me to go back and look at what else was different on most of these sport trainers w/ semi-symmetrical like the Avistar, the WM Sky Raider Mach I, and Hangar 9 Arrow. To an airframe, all of these sportier trainer designs also featured wing dihedral much flatter than more traditional designs like the Sig Kadet or GP PT-40. It's the high amount of dihedral that causes traditional trainers to roll less gracefully, it's high dihedral that causes traditional trainers to tend to fall out of loops, and it's high dihedral that make many traditional trainers feel so much more succeptable to wind buffetting.

In theory, I know that a semi-symmetrical airfoil is "cleaner" by design than a flat-bottomed airfoil. I just think that, in terms of real-world sport flying with ARF trainers, that semi-symmetrical wing design ends up being about as important as the rear spoiler on the hatchback of your typical Mazda. The vehicle is going to spend 98% of it's time operating in conditions where it makes no apparent difference.

In Conclusion

I liked my Nexstar while I was flying it. It was a good looking airframe and it was very easy with which to learn to land. If I ever bought another one, it wouldn't be the RTF version. I probably would never buy another one, however, because taking out the steep dihedral would require significant modifications and flying conditions are simply too windy where I live to enjoy the stock Nexstar most of the time.

I believe that any pilot looking for a quality primary trainer would be equally well served by either an Avistar or a Tower Trainer 40 MkII. I believe that the perfect engine for either of these airframes is the O.S. Max .46 LA because of it's light weight. More power isn't necessary to fly either of these airframes even in a very aerobatic manner, and a 17 ounce ball bearing 2-stroke makes the airframe difficult to balance without adding weight. Too many students put heavy ball-bearing .46s on their Avistars and then struggle to learn landings because their trainer is nose-heavy and lands hotter than it should.

I believe that any pilot concerned about the appearance and longevity of the trim scheme of his aircraft would be well served by spending $30 extra on the Avistar and then $4 extra on an exhaust deflector for his muffler. If a pilot already owns a Super Tigre G-45 ABC engine that he wishes to use. I think he should look instead to the Hangar 9 Alpha .40 ARF. The Hangar 9 Alpha .40 is designed to balance properly with a heavier ball-bearing .46-size engine. The H9 Alpha .40 ARF is also covered and trimmed in Ultracote, and it will stay looking new for much longer than the other airframes previously mentioned.

Hopefully my opinions at least seem informed when weighed with their given explanations. Good luck and good shopping!

Big Ed,
Thanks a lot for that detailed reply. Right now I'm leaning toward the Hangar 9 Alpha with DSM2 5ch radio; second choice is the Avistar 40 with Futaba 4yf 4ch radio "semisym" wing design. I don't know what dihedral is, or how to find it or how to change it, but from your reply it sounds like there is not a ton of difference in flight between these models. I just watched a video on the Hangar 9 engine, which is tuned to be user friendly for the newbie with some extra parts which can then be removed for use in a second plane. The programmable radio is really catching my eye, both for the channel security and for the programmability for future planes (I imagine myself getting bored with a trainer for some reason, but maybe they're more aerobatic than I am assuming). I dream of one day flying a hot little low-wing sporty plane, ripping by with low altitude rolls, etc.

Thanks again.

They are more aerobatic than you might think.
Dihedral? The planes you are considering are RTF or ARF I believe, in any case the dihedral is already built into the wing and should stay there while you are training.
You can always buy an extra wing later and take some of the dihedral out. The root rib is angled, that is where you get the dihedral.
Along with a dihedral brace that goes between the two wing halfs.
You will see what I mean when you assemble your trainer.

Yep, RTF. Sounds like the Hangar 9 Alpha DSM2's the winner here.

Before purchacing an Alpha with the DX5 transmitter ensure your prospective instructor can interface with that transmitter for buddy box training.

I have flow the Nexstar, Alpha 40, Avistar, and the Arrow. I will say all of these planes are excelent flyers with my personal favorite being the Arrow for it's aerobatic abilities and size. (slightly larger than the Avistar) If you get an RTF package the Avistar falls short in that it comes with a capable but enimic OS .40 LA. The weaker engine will teach you to fly the plane but when you get past that you will want more grunt on the nose. The one I flew was outfitted with a Thunder Tiger Pro .46 BB so it was a lot of fun. My Arrow has an OS .46 FX and it is amazing. The Nexstar comes with an OS .46 fx(i) and is heavier than the rest of the aformentioned planes. More mass on impact = more damage. It is a capable plane that will teach you to fly but it will bore you much sooner than the other two. The Alpha 40 I flew suprized me with its great combination of size and power. While it was less aerobatic it was a no brainer for cutting lazy circles in the sky with the ocasional loop and roll.

good point; i'll check.

A small point but IMO needed is that a barrel roll and an aileron roll are 2 vastly different manuevers:

In aviation, the barrel roll maneuver includes a constant variation of attitude in all three axes, and at the midpoint (top) of the roll, the aircraft is flying inverted, with the nose pointing at a 90-degree angle ("sideways") to the general path of flight. The term "barrel roll" is frequently used, incorrectly, to refer to any roll by an airplane (see aileron roll), or to a helical roll in which the nose remains pointed generally along the flight path. In fact, the barrel roll is a specific and difficult maneuver; a combination of a roll and a loop.

Barrel rolling is not used in aerobatic competition. Both the Boeing 707 and Concorde prototypes were barrel rolled during testing. The 707 was rolled just once by Tex Johnston while Concorde was rolled multiple times by her test pilots, including Jean Franchi and Brian Walpole.

I trained in both while learning aerobatic full scale flying but the barrel roll is NOT used in competition. This is stated above also. A good barrel roll IS much harder to execute than a simple aileron roll.