We had a student flyer at the same time I was learning of about the same age as myself (43). He seemed to have no spacial talents or depth perception - could not tell if the plane was heading towards or away from himself at any distance past 50 feet. I have never seen anything like it for a person with normal eyesight (it is somewhat frightening that this guy drives a car). The worst part was that he was as nice a guy as could be, every one liked him and tried to help, and he desperately wanted to learn to fly.

Eventually, one or our instructore spent hours with him taxing the plane up and down the runways. This seemed to help a bit. Last I knew he was flying much better and has re-enlisted in the school this year. It seems he has to learn to judge distance by stored visual memory. Perhaps some people just don't have as good an ability to judge speed and distance.

I shoot instinctive archery and it is amazing to watch the mind at work doing ballistic computations and instructing the muscles in a way that is still worlds above the most complicated Cray computer. Same thing at the pattern contests. It is not hard to imagine the aeroplane being an extension of the mind and body of the piolt. Perhaps others just don't have the fine motor skills to guide their thumbs the fractions of an inch that make all the difference? We're all hoping that we can develop the talents in this flyer.

Isn't physical, maybe it's psychological. There was an older gentleman in our training class who simply freaked whenever the plane got within 50' of the ground. He was pretty good otherwise.

While all the discussions about technique are valid, maybe you should try being honest with the guy.

Ask him if he understands what's going on with the plane.

Ask him if he's scared/nervous/ashamed of his lack of skill.

Tell him you don't think its working with you and find him another instructor.

And, keep in mind that if you label him as "pathetic" on the boards, you may be transmitting that level of contempt to him at the field.

What a great insight this thread has given me.

Perhaps, with the older students the problem is Neurological.

Maybe they've had a stroke or cardiac irregularities/impairment that have gone unnoticed.

My dad had this problem and his game of horseshoes went down the tubes. He didn't have a clue. An MRI proved that he had had some minor strokes, just enough to impair his spacial perception.

I guess when they say "we're all created equal", maybe that's true when we're young but stretching the truth as we age.......

I am only three months into this, so let me put in my two cents. I am completely self taught. No buddy box, not touching, no instructor.

I do believe some people have an aptitude for some things and not others. Some can translate physical motion of the hand into a mental image of its effect on the plane and some can not. While it can be learned, it isn't fun for many people.

It isn't like driving because you can't feel the plane because you aren't in it. You have to imagine the plane and translate your hand movement to an expected outcome. This is not simple and it does not come easily to many people.

Also, for a car, the medium is stationary. Most of the time, when you turn the wheel of a car 5 degrees you get the same response every time and it does not build as you hold the wheel. That is not true for boats or planes and it is difficult for someone to understand. The longer you hold the turn, the tighter it gets. In addition, boats and most planes "steer" from the back while cars steer from the front. Talk about a huge change in control orientation.

However, I think the greatest barrier to learning something like flying an RC plane is the fear of failure. The more fearful the student is of crashing, the less they are willing to try, to respond, or to trust the plane to fly itself. In my limited experience, I have found that when I mess up in my management of the plane, very often the best thing to do is to take my hands off the stick and let the plane take its natural course, which is to fly level and even.

Of course this is the value of the simulator. Gain some feel with little fear of damage from a crash. You actually learn to cause the crash so you come to understand what makes it happen.

Now, I fly an Aerobird, a very simple three channel plane. I do have the aptitude for translation from hand motion to plane motion. I do have a basic understanding of flight and I have very little fear of failure. I chose the plane I did because I believed it could take a lot of punishment and, if I crashed it hard enough or often enough I could afford do replace it and start again. I have learned a lot about repair and reinforcement, but I also learned that years ago from cars and boats. Although there was a lot less crashing with them. More minor scratches.

I have no simulator time. I think sims are great, but I had no interest in using one. I was prepared to fly and crash and fix and fly again. Not the best method, but it does seem to work for me. Now I fly with great confidence, wind does not concern me and my expectation is for success. But if I fail, I learn and go forward.

Teach your students on planes that can take it. Foam or wings or something that can take a pounding. Let them fail so they can succeed.

As for buddy boxes. While I have never used one I think they are a great idea for a second level of training. Like a dual control car, they serve as a safety. But I think the hand on hand method is a much better idea. It is very valuable to feel the right way to do things. I also think that training on a single stick system is one of the reasons I succeeded so fast. Only one stick to be concerned about. The throttle is on a slide, a completely different type of control. No chance to confuse the left and right sticks.

I am not an instructor, unless you look at this as self instruction. I am a student in all things that I do. I study to gain basic understanding, so I do encourage you to give ground training to your students. Put the plane on the ground and talk them through a flight. Make them move the stick and watch what the control surfaces do so that they start to feel and see what the stick is causing to happen. Now turn the plane toward them so they can see and feel the reverse effect of flying toward yourself. Describe how each control surface movement causes the plane to move.

Then take off, hand on hand and talk through the flight as you control it and let them feel it. Have them tell you what the surfaces are doing and see how the plane moves. Flying a plane is more akin to driving a boat than driving a car. The boat travels with the medium as does the plane. It is not like driving a car, but some people never understand that.

I have no right to tell you guys anything, but I will anyway. Consider the words of a student; a self taught flyer. I considered myself having soloed when I could reliably put the plane in the air, fly around the field and land with full expectation of success. I reached this level after 10 flights, 3 crashes and a few minor bumps.

You may find a pearl here somewhere that may help that challenged student or that fearful flyer, or the one that just doesn't seem to get it. I hope so.

As Crash and Burn says, "What a great insight this thread has given me."

Lots of great information. Some I don't agree with, lots that I do and some good new things to think about. Really neat.

I have instructed in RC for 30+ years. I learned and taught using the grab-the-box method. Didn't like the buddy box when they came out, until I used one, then wondered how we lived without it. I think Ragland's method is the one way to get the job done fast. OTOH, I don't like guys that much!!!
Now there are some mommies that bring those youngsters out that I could certainly get close to, however they just never see the benefit of learning RC. (;-))

I relate RC instruction to my USAF days where I instructed 3 years in T-33 and then 2 years in T-38. In addition there were operational Instructor times in B-47s and T-29s. As an Airline Captain, there were times when I had to impart some instruction. (As a co-pilot I also received my share!!) I see the same in RC.

As has been related in this thread, IMO the most important parts of instructing are the Pre-flight Briefings and after flight critique.
In all these years, I have never thought of what PhillyBaby (post 22) said about before going to sleep. This sounds great and all my future trainees will get that briefing.

Prior to the initial flight, the student needs about 2 hours ground school covering basic flight principles, how the radio works, pressure versus banging sticks, and safety rules/guidelines. This will bore him to tears. OTOH after a few flights, more Ground school can review and relate those points to what he/she has done in the air. It will begin to make sense.

Loops and rolls can be big confidence maneuvers and should be started after a couple flights just to break the concentration of other more disciplined flying.
I don't believe in shooting more than 3 landings without going out and boring some holes. Take a break. In USAF pilot training we found that more than 4-5 landings was too much, as the concentration was too tiring. After that the bumps got more bumpy!
By the same token, an RC student needs to fly 3 sessions per week. 2 sessions per week will require more sessions. Once a week takes much longer to solo. More than 3 will be counterproductive as will more than 4 flights in any one session.

There are some individuals that simply cannot learn to do the task. Others take to it like a duck to water. Never allow a student to solo without at least one session with another instructor. Good for all.
In civil flight training, as long as one will pay, someone will instruct him. One can go on nearly forever to get a private license.
I don't know about now as the selectees are probably much better qualified, however back in my days, it was expected that 60% would be eliminated. (My class started with 39 and graduated 14) Isn't it wonderful that we don't do that in RC???

So, BRIEF and GROUND SCHOOL the new guys. Work 'em hard and review lessons. Remain in control of the situation, but allow him to make some mistakes and recover. Never allow him to crash. Vary the lesson tasks to get that safe-for-solo and don't be afraid to allow someone else to interject their techniques and points for a few lessons.

Best of luck.

AEAJR:
I too raced RC cars and boats before i flew, i had years of free flight chuck gliders behind me so i knew how planes react to controls, and the cars and boats taught me that when you come towards your self you trun the wrong way, however, while the not keeping the stick over for planes didnt catch me out, coming back towards myself did! turning and rolling felt very diffrent, but it only took a couple of flights to get it

phillybaby,

My reference to cars and boats was really toward the boats and cars we travel in, not RC. People try to translate what they know to what they are trying to do. While I do have an RC car, it is really a toy class thing that runs on flashlight batteries. It hasn't been out of the box in years. But I suppose I did get some training on driving toward myself using it. I hadn't really thought about it.

Flying RC planes is not a natural thing; it moves, you don't; it travels in thee dimensions, you travel in two. There is no point of reference from prior life experience.

As to the frequency of instruction, three times a week is a huge investment and commitment. Yes I agree it would be best, but can we really expect the typical newbie to do that? I would love to be able to fly three times a week now, but I can't.

Someone who has been big into video games might pick it up faster, I don't know. Of course that is the simulator effect that so many instructors like to recommend. Again, I think sims are great, I just have not used one yet, but I will.

I do think electrics, as first planes, take a lot of things out of the inital learning process. For one, their motor's don't stall. There is no mix issue. By turning off the motor in flight, you can really understand what the control surfaces are doing, like a glider.

Lastly, I think that hand launching an electric eliminates the ROG learning process. I guess you can hand launch a glo plane, but I have never seen it done. Of course you still need to land. I presume that you instructors do the take offs and landings during your inital sessions anyway, so this probably isn't a real issue.

Again, I have not flown glo, or on a buddy box, or by the hand on hand method or with any active instruction. I am not critical of any of these methods, if they work. I am only relating to my own experience and what I can infer from what I read here and what others tell me. Particularly those with difficult students who "freeze on the stick", "still over control after 10 lessons" or do other things that the instructor doesn't seem to train out.

I think you instructor guys are great! You must have so much patience.

interesting thread...I agree that some are more apt to this than others...I learnt the "gimme the box" way...and according to those teaching me I was a "natural"...when all I did was watch what he was doing and how it related to the plane's actions and then tried to do the same....but as I said some are more prone than others...

regarding crashes...now with sims it's much easier in that no damage...you can crash to your hearts content...(guess who has just gotten RF G2 to try torque rolling and the like ) however I believe that it's still limited...a newbie needs to be out and looking at a real model to learn correctly..in that respect my experience of teaching others using the Aircore trainer (which they still make) was very good...flying a plane which you know is virtually indestructible does wonders with self confidence (not to mention the money issue)...and for me was very enjoyable...simply because it wasn't my pride and joy..nor would it take hours to repair in case of a crash..

just my .02

<SOAPBOX>

Not wanting to be contrary but, I detest those "indestructible" flying abortions, be they Aircore, SPAD, Sitcks whatever.

I think students learn better on a stable, lightly loaded, well behaved trainer, not some overweight plane with flexible appendages that keeps you wondering if you made that move or it was just the curtain rod fuse twisting.

Aircraft like the CG Eagle 2 or the venerable Kadet are my choice for providing a student with a rewarding session.

Engines? The good ole reliable OS 46fx. Spend less time on the ground tuning some QC challenged knockoff engine or struggling to get airborne on some wheezy 40LA.

And why do hobby shops keep selling radios without buddy box features to newcomers?

</SOAPBOX>

my intention was to point to the advantages of the indestructability/reduce fear/cost per crash issue...but I do see your point...however mine was pretty stable...

R/C, I am with you!

Dang it Jim...cool the non educated "lump Spads into heavy high wing loading trainer" group. There are two Spads that rival and beat (depending on how equipped) the wing loading and flight charicteristics of comercial trainers. The only difference is the fear of crashing a large investment is gone. If this wasn't the case, why is continuing to grow rapidly in popularity? I thought the Spad bashing had dissapeared from here ...Jim...you want to build a Spad so bad...I just know it, just give up, and try it

matter of fact...I'm buying another one...my nephew wants to learn to fly...and I simply don't have the time to repair any mistakes...

CharlieP writes:
This may not be the appropriate thread to take this up, but since this discussion is already rolling, why not...

As long as I can remember, I've regarded the aeroplane as just that: an extension of myself. I've never thought of it as "I'm down here and it's up there", I've always projected myself to the airplane.

How do others feel? Maybe that's the difference between pilot and re-kitter.

i would have to agree with that, its the same with my RC car, i feel very attached to it and you actully feel every little diffrence.
When people try my car they notice right away how reactive it is, too much for them normally, but it does what i tell it, small stick movement = small car movement
as a result most of my planes are also very direct feeling compaired to most peoples.
i hate flying planes that feel like mush, (dosnt mean rearward CofG and twitchy). its strange to say that because your not attached, but when i fly i forget that, i am the plane, its part of me.
i dont even realise i have a transmitter in my hands, or what my thumbs are doing unless im trying to learn something new.

It becomes very obvisious when you get given a new plane to fly and you land it at your feet first time out, you dont know where the stall is, you just feel how the plane is reacting and make it do what you want it too.
I remember doing this with Grand Tourismo when it first came out too, i'd spend ages tuning the car because i felt every little difference, and thats a GAME!

the down side to this is you test fly a plane and it feels great, a Rapier in this example, i flew it low and fast, stable very scale like, it was a great plane to fly, i handed it over to the owner telling him how good it was, within a few seconds it was a bank and yank over reacting monster!!! for him anyway

Never really thought about it before, but looking back, I would have to say that I too must project myself into it somewhat. I have been saying for years that I never get to watch my heli fly or see what it does. Maybe that is because I see it from a different angle. I don't just fly it and watch it, I fly it and am so into it that I don't see what it does, but rather see it as if I am doing it.

Maybe? It could happen.

>>>>>>>>
As long as I can remember, I've regarded the aeroplane as just that: an extension of myself. I've never thought of it as "I'm down here and it's up there", I've always projected myself to the airplane.

How do others feel? Maybe that's the difference between pilot and re-kitter.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

The only things that I haven't done with a real airplane that I HAVE done with an RC model are (1) multiple consecutive Snap-Rolls, (2) Destructive Crashes and (3) Mid-Airs.
I like that.

When my RC model is, by my command, performing smooth aerobatic maneuvers, I do frequently relate to those aviation days as I remember those visual concepts from the cockpit.

Memories? Ah yes, one of an old man's few true treasures.

I hate to be the amateur psychologist, but somehow I guess that flying is serious business for you. Otherwise, how to explain the degree of emotion shown in this post?

For me, flying is recreation, also known as fun. Indestructible planes are just fun to fly.

I started out with a balsa trainer (a GP Trainer 40), a Bridi design you'd probably approve of. Every time I had a hard landing, or messed up right from left, I was looking at an hour or two of repairs. You might think that would have inspired me to fly better, but I was honestly doing the best I could. To me it was NO FUN. So I got a U.S. Aircore, and had a ball learning to fly. Instead of white-knuckling it, I was laughing with delight.

On the day I soloed at training day at my field, I got shot down, hard. The instructor who was with the student who turned on his transmitter came over and apologized and would have paid for the plane. Now how much fun would that have been with a balsa model? Some newbie makes an innocent mistake, and I have to either eat the cost myself, or ask him for it. With the Aircore, there was less than 1/2 hour of work to get it flying again (that was a severe crash!). That was 100 times more fun than the balsa alternative where someone goes home pretty grumpy.

Now that I had soloed, I wanted to learn to fly aerobatics, particularly inverted low passes. I asked the best flyer at the field how long it would take to get that good, and he said, "Four airplanes." That's when I was glad I was getting into Spads. Four wood airplanes would take a long time to build or a lot of money to buy! Don't get me wrong, I like building, but it's usually a winter activity, and I usually build just one plane a year. Besides, it just didn't seem like fun.

So I built 4 DPS Spads in a couple of weeks for about $50 (total), and my friends and I all had a ball flying them. It's not just the flying and not worrying about crashing. The "S" stands for "simple". On these planes, everything is exposed and reduced to the simplest to get the job done. You don't have to worry about a fuel leak in a closed compartment, or a push-rod binding inside a fuse, or fuel-soaked balsa, or how to route the throttle cable. Everything is just easy and therefore fun.

So what is it you detest about this story? That someone's having gain without the pain? I mean, I could understand if you said something like, "I'm not in to Spads, myself", just like I might say, "I'm not into scale". But to call them "abortions", and to draw up enough emotion to "detest" something sounds like something pretty deep.

I'm glad RCU is here to allow you to vent, but I'm also concerned that folks reading your post will pay attention, and thus miss out on what could be the most fun they'll ever have in R/C.

theres a Aircore on our club site ready to go for 130, soooooooooooooooooooooo tempted to buy it just to muck about with, but it'd be better off with a learner, dont want to rob them of that, i've still got a old beat up combat delta, i may end up buding a Phor just to muck about with.
The prangster is another good one for this.
but have you seen some of these SPADS? simple and ugly they aint, even the Aircore was ok for its time

Sorry to have offended Tattoo but this is a thread about ideas that help beginners, not YAST (YeT Another SPAD Thread). I'm sure SPAD can address the "fear of crashing" problem (if that is the problem) but, my uneducated opinion is that all the SPAD's I've seen (and the few I've flown) ... would suck as a trainer. I'm not bashing the concept, or people who enjoy them or contesting that they can be fun or the fact that a reasonable trainer could be constructed by some innovative type. Just not in my experience.... show me don't tell me.

Granted, maybe I've not yet encountered the super-de-duper well designed/well built version but, in my limited experience, most fly like they look... some plastic screwed to a drain pipe.

Sorry for the off-topic diversion.

Free Your Mind.........You just have to let it all go......


www.spadtothebone.com/SPAD/Spadet

dunno... the aircore trainer flew pretty well IMHO...unless a plane that flies itself (no engine) after a direct high speed headon for a good while...because I was convinced it had perished as well..is what all palnes would do...

ugly?..yes....(though IMHO less so than a self constructed SPAD)...useful?..definitely.

to furthe my point..I had convinced a friend of mine to get into flying...his plane lasted ONE flight...(control linkage failure)a complete writeoff...he quit. Maybe he would have all the same...with the aircore... but I doubt it...

my .02...

The recent diversion reminds me of a movie quote: "She's French Canadian, when she's Canadian she can be quite pleasant, but today she's French"

That aside, I happen to have a flying drainpipe, and can confirm that it flys like a brick. Unfortunately, it is still srvicable after several unsuccessful flights. I'll save it for when I feel confident enough to fly a high speed motorized brick with foam wings....

Meanwhile, I'll stick to my chinese flying plywood crates....

The Aircore, Sturdy Birdy, and Duraplane are well known to have wings that are just too small, and wingloadings that are just way too high.

There's nothing inherent in coro, PVC, or foam that requires a high wingloading and poor performance. The air neigher knows nor cares what an airplane is made out of. All that matters is the wingloading, get the wingloading down, and anything will float.

It's funny how history repeats itself. Back in the late 20's and early 30's, people were starting to experiemnt with the radical idea of making airplanes out of METAL! *Gasp* IT was too heavy they said, it would never fly they said. And don't even think of only having 1 wing with no bracing wires or struts, it will just never work, it can't be done. Oh, and enclosed cockpits are just too dangerious, the pilot just can't feel the air to know what the plane is doing.

Same story, different scale and differnet era. But good for a laugh for those of us who know better

Oh, I definately project myself into the plane. I suppose that's why I have never installed a pilot figure in any plane I have ever owned, even the free-flight models of my youth. That's my spot! Some once told me I should get into pattern or aerobatics competition because I would soon get bored with sport flying. Can't imagine that ever happening.