gboulton - i agree that a bipe could be a good second plane given that the bipe in questions has a generous amount of dihedral and a long fuse. the problem i see with bipes is threefold:

1. they don't fly themselves. unlike trainers, bipes don't fly themselves. the best second plane is a high wing without dihedral or a low wing with dihedral like the WM super sport.
2. orientation is more difficult as bipes can look the same right side up as it does upside down at a distance. i've sent myself into a panick multiples times trying to reorient myself after being distracted and looking away from my plane or having the sun in my eye. what saves you is not that you can SEE the plane but that you can judge, due to your inputs, which way it's oriented. i would think that a beginner would have more difficulty getting out of that situation. i've seen people fly their bipes right into the ground, looping crazily all the way. i suggest, if a beginner is flying a bipe, a spotter (instructor) should be present at all times.
3. they are short coupled and thus have bad ground handling. it would not be the best first taildragger.

furthermore, they tend to be far more difficult to fly in gusty wind and less forgiving of pilot error. i would suggest that the bipe be a second plane of a two plane hanger rather than a plane to replace the trainer. ground handling, landing and flying are all more difficult in wind but that is accentuated with a bipe. just my experience. and bipes are generally not made for beginners and thus a little more fragile.

last but not least... balancing a scale bipe is very very sensitive. Due to the short nose and two wing layout, it is not easy to balance the bipe (imho). as such, the maiden should be done by an experienced person that checks everything before hand.

BUT... i love bipes, too. they just have so much personality.

A Biplane is not a good second airplane. IMHO the best choice for a second airplane is a low wing tailwheel. I won't get into details on choosing one here since there are many good sources already available (RCKen's list), but use common sense not all low wing airplanes fly the same!

P.S. Not all biplanes are short coupled, you know.

I submit, however, as with any other type of airplane, that this is a generalization that's simply inaccurate. To say that few bipes are designed to 'fly themselves' is probably accurate...to say that bipes don't, simply because they're bipes, however, is misleading. There is, again, nothing inherent in the presence of absence of a second wing that makes the aircraft incapable of 'flying itself'. A Staggerwing and some Waco models are as "self-righting" as any "low wing trainer".

Again...you're attributing a statement that's true of ANY airplane to bipes specifically. Of COURSE if you look away from an aircraft you can lose orientation on it. If the location of the wings (up or down) is your only clue, you're as doomed with a midwing aerobat as you are a bipe.

If anything, i might even suggest that for some, bipes are EASIER to track, given the rather wide variety of patterns the eye can see depending on point of view. 2 wings gives me FOUR surfaces to color and pattern, each differently if I so choose. If we want to say "What if...", heck, one could not only tell inverted from upright based on patterns, but even tell nose in or nose out just from wing covering patterns...

Again...the whole thing here is that the danger of losing an airplane if you look away from it is very real with ANY aircraft...bipes are no easier or more difficult to pick up than anything else.

I've never understood this line of reasoning. Why must the addition of a top (or bottom) wing suddenly make an airplane "short coupled"?? The Staggerwing is anything but, the Hog Bipe is LONGER than its ancestors, and a well built PT-17 is arguably one of the most docile taildraggers on the planet.

Now you're just making gross generalizations.

Bipes have no more or less range of "acceptable CG" than any other aircraft...and even if they did, should we honestly suggest to a relatively new pilot "Oh, no, don't get that airplane...we don't want you to have to be precise in your setup, you're not ready to do high quality work"?

*blink*

Ok...now I'm just confused. A short moment (again, a generalization that's simply NOT true of all bipes) makes balancing LESS sensitive, and thus EASIER...not more sensitive and thus more difficult.

Unfortunately that's untrue and consists of a bunch of generalizations.

1 - Orientation is NOT more difficult at all.

There is basically NO difference, because there is the same amount of asymmetry from top to bottom as a low wing plane.

At distance it is just as difficult to orient on a low winger as with a biplane. If you are having problems, put stripes on your plane or use another means to let you figure out how it is oriented.

My Bipes are FAR easier to see than say a PTS P-51D "Trainer".

2 - They are NOT "more difficult to fly in gusty winds and less forgiving of pilot error". I fly Ultimates in high winds all the time. As with anything else the larger the plane the better it handles the wind.

Their need for power on approach actually makes landings a bit easier in winds, since you power them down right onto the runway w/o risk that they will float over the entire length of the field on a headwind, or that a gust will flip them over.

3 - Bipes are NOT "more fragile" quite the contrary they are MUCH MUCH STRONGER.

The wing struts and carbanes form a hard "square" support system for the wings. Since the wing struts are affixed mid wing there is far LESS chance of damage during a mishap. You have several points of re-inforcement, not present in a monoplane...


I've cartwheeled a small Ultimate 40S end over end ( sideways) when I nosed it in on a very bad landing...

I thought the plane was toast.... I went to pick up the pieces to find it unscathed! ( there was one tiny bit of damage... more on this in a second... ).

I could not see anything wrong....

I fueled it up and flew it the rest of the day...

Everyone at my field came up and wanted to know who manufactured " such a hardy plane " as they wanted to purchase one after that demonstration of just how strong the Biplane is... all had assumed it was demolished...

The next day I went flying again, only to discover that I had broken a strut just above the junction point. I had spent the previous afternoon performing snap rolls, etc. with a busted strut and I didn't even notice! The other two junctions to the top wing were THAT strong.

A bit of glue fixed this quickly... but no other monoplane of that size would have sustained that type of abuse w/o falling apart.

When you do manage to damage the wings, you only do so on the area outside of the struts. This makes them a breeze to fix... and the damage tends to be minor. Again you have a form of cross bracing that you do not have on a monoplane.

4 - Bipes are VERY forgiving of their balance points... On a small 40 Ultimate I've gone 3-4CM in each direction w/o any problems, contrary to popular belief...
On a small 29" Ultimate I've gone a whopping 2-3CM off C.G. in each direction w/o problems.


Biplanes do NOT necessarily have "short noses" either... again it depends upon which biplane you are flying...

A Skybolt is about one of the most forgiving planes available.

A novice has no problems greasing landings in with this plane.

A Moth is almost trivial to fly.


BTW: My 10 year old daughter's first flights were on a E-Flite Ultimate FX. It was such a gentle flyer ( and easy for her to see dispite it's small size ) at low throttle that she picked it up right away.

I think the short coupling is an optical illusion. The biplane has a second wing and sometimes looks "fatter." Case in point: The Gee Bee R1/R2 series. They have about the same moment as the 'Y' but for some reason everybody calls the R1/R2 series a flying deathtrap on the ground and the 'Y' a *****cat. Go figure.

Can biplanes be difficult to keep orientation on? Sure, however I don't think they're any worse than many monoplanes. I do admit that I've only flown biplanes a couple of times, so take this post with as much salt as you wish.

Darn filter! I didn't even think of that..[&:]

looks like i've opened up a can of worms.

gboulton, opjose - i am humbled by your responses and am happy that you both have valuable input. i think all of this goes back to gboulton's notion not to generalize, that every plane has its particular characteristics and that is what really determines whether that particular plane is right for a 2nd plane. my experiences clearly vary from yours. and while all your rationale does make sense to me, i still have a hard time accepting them based on my own experiences. as such i will make these amends.

don't fly themselves - it would be good to find something that does right itself. which ones i will not say but i'd say a WACO probably not :-)
orientation - if you want a bipe, please ensure that you make the top and bottom of the wings look different.
ground handling - please choose a plane that is not short coupled. choose something like the hog bipe suggested by gboulton
setup - if you choose a plane that has a long nose and a long tail then setup will not be any more difficult.

the only thing i would disagree is the balance issue. the shorter the object, the more difficult to balance and with the added complexity of two wings, i've always found it more difficult to ensure balance is exactly right. but i'm not going to make a martyr out of me :-) if you guys think balancing is as easy and forgiving, that is okay with me.

thanks, gboulton for your reply. opjose, your response is qually valuable except that you make some of the same gross generalizations that got me in trouble! but let's leave it at that. i just hope that people reading this post learn from us.

btw - opjose, your daughter has talent. maybe more so than a lot of us!

OK, I'm not going to say for or against. However, I have noticed no one has described "HOW" they fly their bi-plane, so I will describe how I fly mine. I have a Pica Waco YMF 5 1/6th scale bi-plane powered by a Super Tigre 90 2 stroke. She weighs about 11 pounds. She is a little nose heavy. On take off, I leave the elevator on low rates. During takeoff, I hold full back elevator until she has flying speed. I allow the elevator stick to go to center and she lifts off gently and gradually, (no sky clawing). I use her rudder to turn into the pattern to down leg. I fly her pretty musch like any other airplane. She performs rolls and loops with ease. The ST 90 is more than enough power. When landing, I turn base to final while backing off the power slightly. She lands down center runway every time with a three point landing. This is one terrific airplane. Best of luck to all of you.

gboulton- I am sorry if I let me 25 years of flying and teaching folks on RC aircraft get in the way here...Your post comes off as VERY arrogant so I will go ahead and assume that you are WAY smarter and cooler than I-

I was just giving my .02 although I guess it was not worth that much....geesh, no wonder I avoid this forum

Cool, got it, not a good second plane!

Didn't mean to start an argument!!!

*chuckle* Those are probably reasonable amendments, yeah. *heh*

And hey, I must toss the comment back to you...your input is well-noted as well. There's no question that a great many bipes share the traits being talked about here, and certainly, ANY pilot should familiarize himself with the things he might want to look for before choosing another plane.

Eh...this one probably depends on nothing more than our individual definitions of "easy". Certainly, a shorter moment requires more WEIGHT to have the same effect. By one definition, that could be seen as more difficult, since it makes it more difficult to achieve the right balance while keeping the plane light.

In my particular case, I find it "easier" since the addition or subtraction of a small amount of weight doesn't throw the CG around by several miles. "Less sensitive", I guess would be the term.

I will ABSOLUTELY agree with you that the second wing makes DETERMINING the CG a right pain in the rump...I WILL say this though, as something of an aside...it is my belief that a "Vanessa CG machine" (See http://home.mindspring.com/~the-plum...%20Machine.htm for details, or, if you wish, PM me, I'll be happy to share pics and such) goes a LONG way to removing that hassle.

*chuckle*

So be it. You're right...I won't argue with you at all on that one. I am, indeed, a pretty arrogant so-and-so.

There was an interesting note from a novice flyer today, in the long Skybolt thread.

Apparently he had just come off his first planes ( foamies ) and flew the Skybolt as his first nitro plane.

He did 3 flights on it his first time out.

Not bad at all...

My 6th or 7th plane was the GP Ultimate 40. At that point I had been flying for 5 years, probalby an average of once per week throughout the year. I had progressed through an Eagle trainer, Tiger 2, Extra Special, Laser 3D, and several 3D profiles. The Utlimate was no problem at all. It is well behaved with no bad habits. You do need to stay on top of it, e.g. you can't take your eyes off it for a few seconds and then look back and expect it to be flying straight and level. You also need to keep the airspeed up during approach by either keeping the nose down or running some power. The most notable difference between a monoplane and biplane for me was the visual image. I found the second wing and the stuts between wings to present a confusing image. I had a several ocassions of panic when I lost orientation close to the ground, and I planted it nose first once during a low knife-edge pass gone horribly wrong. I had to dig the engine (Saito 72) out of the mud. The Ultimate airframe is strong and survived the crash to fly again.

These are just my personal observations. They are not indisputable facts. Relax guys.

well, guys, i feel good that we've represented the risks of not only biplanes here but generalizations as well

on another note i think bipes are just about the most beautiful planes. from stearmans to staggerwings to ultimates, there's a lot of golden era in them. i am always looking for the next best bipe and my dream plane is a bipe with a big radial engine. something like a PT-17 with a seidel.

if anything, i understand the allure of a bipe.

My Bipe CV
Nieuport 15
WM ultimate 30
WM ultimate 40
Kyosho Stearman (40)
Kyosho Super Stearman (40)
Christen Eagle II (120)

You didn't start an argument. You heard a lot of generalizations based to some degree on the perpetuation of old wives tales. The first persons to successfully fly a man carrying airplane flew a biplane. There are some biplanes that are inherently unstable, and that is normally done by design. The S-series Pitts come to mind. If they were stable, they would not fly as aerobatically as they do. The same can be said for a Yak-54, or an Extra 300. These are unstable monoplanes. If you want to fly a biplane for your second plane, then carefully choose one. The Sig Hog Bipe would make a good choice. A good choice for a second monoplane would be a Sig 4-Star. Notice that both are offered by Sig. They build straight and light. These are both good characteristics to be found in any airplane, but especially in one's first or second model. I would reccomend that you not build a scale model of anything for your second model, since scale models tend to amplify the bad things that are appearent in the full scale, plus scale models seldom build light. Trust your feelings toward what you want to build and fly. If you have become competent with your first plane, then there is no reason to turn your back on what you really want to do.

Bill, AMA 4720
WACO Brotherhood #1

And for the benefit of some here, I have been flying R/C since 1957 (that's 51 years). I have 51 years of experience, and not one year of experience, 51 times.

Bill

Oh yeah, here is Mike Barbee (WACO SUPER YMF) at Top Gun on Saturday 26 April 2008. Lakeland Linder Regional Airport. The plane is third scale, and the wind is blowing an average of 20 MPH. I don't know about you, but it looks pretty damn stable to me.

My turn.
The original question was a general one so I see no problem in posting generalized answers.
Biplanes are not good second planes.
I say that based on the average bipe and average beginner pilot moving to a second plane.
There are exceptions. Some bipes are easier to handle (take the Sig Hog for example) and some pilots moving to a second plane are more skilled than others (either natural ability or longer time spent on their first plane)
I see a number of times that people post that they have many years of flying experience, thats good but how can you judge how well a beginner will adjust to a bipe so soon after learning as it has been so long ago that you were in that position.
I am on my 4th year of flying and have 2 bipes. My first Bipe, an ModelTech SE-5, was my 5th plane and even though it is a gentle flier I would not think I would have been ready for it until about at least my 3rd or 4th plane. My other Bipe is a Great Planes Super Stearman, even though I am comfortable with a number of aerobatic planes including my Showtime 90 I am still intimidated by the Stearman.
My neighbor soloed last year in the early spring, by late summer and 3 planes later he had a 40 size Ultimate Bipe, it lasted about 5 or 6 flights and ended in a garbage bag.
Bottom line. If you feel confident enough in your ability and get a gentle Bipe then you may be ok but as for me I don't think I was ready for a Bipe as my second plane.

I am just finishing my Sig Pig, so I will soon have two bipes in my hangar. I love the look of biplanes and I certainly enjoy flying the GP Ultimate 40. However, I fully believe that the generalizations made in this thread are bona fide and the recommendation that a biplane is GENERALLY not a good choice as a second plane is absolutely true.

I suspect that posters who deny that a biplane presents a more confusing visual image do nothing more ambitious than fly their airplanes in rectangular traffic patterns over and over.

I choose to fly my scale bipes in a scalelike manner. I don't attempt manuvers that are not prototypical. That's what scale modelling is all about. It just so happens that my Scale Ultimate 300 also does very good manuvers that are not just flying in a rectangular box. Come on down to sunny Florida, and put your money where your mouth is.

Bill, AMA 4720
WACO Brotherhood #1

There is a big difference between someone who has been flying for over 50 years and someone that is getting ready to step up to their second plane. I suspect Stickbuilder could fly circles around most of us with his eyes closed on sound alone.
I still have brief orientation problems with a single wing and you can bet orientation is going to be that much harder with a bipe for a flier that is still learning.

Bill, you are too sensitive. [sm=teeth_smile.gif] My previous comments were not addressed to you. I don't see that you ever challenged the idea that a biplane presents a more confusing visual image for a relatively new pilot. I do think that, for a beginner, orientation is more challenging with a biplane than with a monoplane. I think those who want to argue this point are simply wrong and are providing bad advice.

I love to watch scale flight and have no problem with it at all. Thanks for the invitation to come to sunny Florida. I would love to but I am still working and raising a family. My spare time is limited to a few hours per week, which on a good week I spend flying. You're welcome to come up to Pennsylvania. Bucks County is beautiful in the spring. There are some nice flying fields in the area.

Four years ago I was looking for a second plane. I also wanted a bipe. I didn't know about RCU at the time and my "club" was the field behind a rural school. I spent a year teaching myself all that I could with a Telemaster 40 while working on a Balsa USA EAA Bipe kit. The EAA in my mind was a great second plane because that's what I wanted to learn to fly at the time and it seemed like a reasonable progression. The plane is still together and flying as well as it did on day one. A kit-built bipe makes for a very durable airplane.

Most of what has been said here is true, however, I tend to agree with Bill. If you want your second plane to be a biplane, then make it so. If you're well trained, the short tail moment, orientation confusion, and generally higher landing speeds will do nothing more than make you a more proficient pilot. In fact, you'll even learn to use the rudder!

It's a hobby...make it your own and persue the airframe types that appeal to you.