If you haven't read my update in the other thread, you should check that out before reading any further



So I've got a Phoenix Super Decathlon with an OS 55AX. It's definitely not what I was expecting out of my inexperience in flying, but I'm starting to think the plane is underpowered.

I need full throttle to take off, and fly at over 3/4 throttle. I am able to land the plane at half throttle. I've tried a 13x5, 13x6, 12x6, and 12x8 prop, with the 13x6 being the best so far. I feel like I am flying just above stall speed at 7/8 throttle.

The plane is heavy. People have logged there's in at weighing 7lb and over. I've got as 12oz tank, painted the gear and struts, added about 18" of 1/2x1/4" balsa, and added 5/4 oz to the tail and 1/2oz to one wing tip, and the plane is balanced very well. I haven't had the chance to weigh the plane yet.

I feel that the plane is severely under powered. The recommendation is for a .46 to .51, but I don't know how the plane could fly with that size engine. My 55AX is brand new, so maybe I'll get some more power out of it down the road, but I'm not enjoying flying the plane at all (except when it's inverted - it flies GREAT upside down) Coming out of an Immelmann the plane will stall if not perfectly level, and turns are VERY wide regardless of the bank angle.

I think the plane needs more speed. The 12x6 was really loud as RPM's were getting up there, but it was still really lacking. The 13x6 is a bit slower, but has the ability to maintain altitude and pull itself around corners with the extra diameter.

I'm feeling that I will have to keep this plane flying with the current setup, but will be stripping the engine and gear over the winter for a .40-.50 pattern plane. I think this plane needs something like a .61 or even a .75 two stroke, or an .80-.90 four stroke. Could this really be? It seems like a lot since the plane is suggested to run with a .46-.51 two stroke or a .52 four stroke.

Please offer any suggestions or advice as it is a beautiful plane and I would love to have a bit more fun with it. Right now I am afraid to try any aerobatics as the plane seems to be flying so close to stall speed (weight?)

I flew the Seagull Models Super Decathlon with an OS 70 and it was a perfect match.

I have heard that the Phoenix and Seagull are virtually the same.

Here's a link to the review I did (With video)

http://www.rcuniverse.com/magazine/a...article_id=415

GaRCField,
I don't want to seem harsh here, but I think it's time that something along these lines needs to be said. You make a statement such as this -
. But your experience level is only one trainer and one "2nd" plane, so your experience base may be a little bit small to make such a judgement. There are many planes out there these days that are simply too overpowered. Yes, it's possible to have too much power. 3-D planes in particular. These planes use massive amounts of power to "horse" a plane around the sky, but believe me they aren't actually flying the plane. Rather they are using the control surfaces to vector the thrust being generated by the engine. But that's not actually flying the plane. The Decathlon is a plane that will not benefit from that type of power. Rather, this is a plane that the pilot needs to learn to actually fly the plane. There is a term in aviation call "flying on the wing" that comes in to play here. This means learning to get the plane in the air and putting it through it's paces by using the lift generated by air moving across the wing, not massive amounts of thrust generated by an over-sized engine. If you want to fly pattern (which you've indicated) then this is a skill that must be learned and understood if you want to advance.

The full scale Decathlons are a plane that is used to train pilots to perform aerobatics. But this plane isn't overpowered by any stretch of the imagination. Compare it to a known full scale aerobatics plane that is used specifically for flying aerobatics routines, the Extra 300. The Extra 300 weighs in at approximately 1,500 lbs (dry) and is powered by a 300 hp engine, and will do every aerobatic maneuver out there. Now look at the Decathlon, it weighs in at approximately 1,350 lbs (dry) and is powered by a 180 hp engine. Compare those figures, the weights are pretty close together (close enough for this demonstration) yet the Extra 300 has almost twice the horsepower. So how does a plane with half the horsepower than a full blown aerobatics plane teach pilots to fly aerobatics?? It does so by teaching the to fly on the wing, and using the principles of aerodynamics and flight to perform these maneuvers. And to answer the question before it's asked, yes the Decathlon can do all the same aerobatic maneuvers that the Extra can. The pilot just needs to know the mechanical theory behind a maneuver in order to perform it properly, because he can't rely on horsepower to pull his bacon out of the fire if he screws up. And trust me, when they are learning these maneuvers they are doing them at a height where they are a simple speck in the sky to those on the ground. This is what we call "3 mistakes high", so there is room to recover when something doesn't go right.

The Phoenix Decathlon is a plane designed for a .40-.46, so the 55 AX should be more than enough engine for it. No, you won't be able to take off in 5 feet. But rather you are going to have to make a takeoff run that builds up enough speed to lift the plane in the air. From your other threads on this subject it sounds like you stalled the plane and then it snapped in to a spiral. Getting out of this is a skill that is learned and needs to be practiced. But not on a third plane such as the Decathlon. This is what everybody was trying to tell you to take it easy and advance up the "normal" progression of planes. The reason for that is because you need to learn skills on a plane that is forgiving in such circumstances. Too many people think that a Decathlon is forgiving because it looks like a Cub, but trust me in that these planes are NOT a Cub. In fact, I think that Minnflyer pointed that out to you when you were contemplating this purchase, and if I am not mistaken he pointed out the plane snapping on a stall on a slow approach. Trust me, I am not trying to put you down, or to rub salt in your wounds, but rather I am trying to get you to realize that you are trying to too fast in this hobby and you are missing out on learning what you need to know. This crash was a perfect example of that. Had you moved up the more traditional progression of planes the chances of this crash happening may have been a lot less. There is an old saying that is perfect for this hobby- "You have to learn to crawl before you can walk, and you have to walk before you run". In your case you tried to go straight from crawling to running a marathon, and skipped a bunch of learning along the way.

Back to the Decathlon, the 55 should have been more than enough engine for that plane. The fact that it felt underpowered could have simply been your impression of the plane (which I discussed above), or something physically wrong with the setup of the plane. Or a combination of the two (which is where I would lay my money). From reading your other thread about the one-way valve it sounds like you may have had a serious problem with the fuel system because you had put the one-way valve on the vent line. On engines like the OS this can cause a lot of serious power issues because the fuel tank is going to have too much pressure in it, which is in turn going to "force feed" the engine too much fuel. This could have very well contributed to a lack of power from the engine in flight. Or it could have been any number of other setup issues with the plane that's very hard for us to diagnose here on this forum without having the plane in front of us.

So to sum up what I'm trying to say here. If you simply slap a larger engine on this plane you are just going to add to the problems you already have. And never address the base problem here, which is knowledge.

Ken

There is a Seagull Decathalon at our field that WAS flying with a .46-AX. It HAD plenty of power. Unfortunately it went in a couple weeks ago. There is also a Phoenix Decathalon that shows up now and then with a Thunder Tigre .46 and it has plenty of power as well. Another guy had a kit built GP Decathalon at the field on Saturday with an old .46 and performance was unbelievable.

I can't imagine your plane being underpowered with the .55. Is then engine running right? You might also experiment with other props. Try a 12x7, 12x8 and even an 11x8. My nearly 7 pound GP Revolver with a .55-AX and 12x7 is a bullet. Of course the low drag airframe has a lot to do with that. I run an 11x8 with the .55 on my WM Rambler. Why 11 inch? Ground clearance mainly. The higher pitch keeps the RPMs in more of an optimum range. Remember... The .55-AX has a much different power band than the .46. it develops power earlier and has more torque for spinning bigger and more aggressive props. These props mean more thrust. I consider the .55 to behave somewhere in between they typical 2-stroke and a 4-stroke.

I wouldn't bother installing a larger engine, it will just make things that much harder.

Just don't get fooled by the Decathalon. Yes it has a big, high wing which may make people think it's docile. It has a stubby little fuselage though and can be tossed around pretty good. I've seen people get into trouble with them. Most often that trouble seems to come from poor ground handling on take-off and stalls caused by low airspeed on landing.

Honestly, I'd recommend getting some other plane for the time being. Try building a GP Rapture over the Winter. It is an excellent flying plane. A 4-star would be another excellent choice to build. If you don't want to build, check out the World Models T-34 or Super Sports, GP Easy Sport, 4-star, Tiger-2, or even the low wing trainer from NitroPlanes. None of these are scale looking but they fly great and won't get you into trouble.

I think you had too much prop on thar...12.5 x 3.75
An arverage prop for a .40-.46 is 10x6...you went 13x6.

By going with a prop with more torque. You lost speed. So there's a diffent type of
flying stlye involved. Maybe that's why it seem like the model wasn't doing what you thought it would.
It flew slower, plus you never really had a chance to alter the CG to make the model more nibble, adjust the throw...ect.

Plus you went from a low winger to a high winger and expected it to be able to get toss around like a low swinger with clipped wings.lol

With what you're expecting out of a plane...i'd go SE, Ucando, Up roar, Twister
The magic has a longer tail movement. But the same type of model.
Fat air foil and skiny fuaselge.

I think you're right about Phoenix's Arf being bricks. I think i see obeechee instead of balsa in some of mine.
Obeechee is a substitude for balsa. A little bit heavier.

Ok thanks guys, thats what i needed to hear.

ken, want to first poin out that i said "INexperience" I meant that this was my impression but knew i was probably missing something. I think the fuel system may be playing a role here too, youre probably right on the money (as usual) with the combination of me used to the engine flying the plane as well as the plumbing issues. Thats why i made this post, and why im still in the beginner forum.

guys, i do have a plane that is a copy of the four star. When i started looking at the decathlon i wanted something slower and more stable than the dolphin, i knew the decathlon wasnt but then i quickly got comfortable with the dolphin and thought the decathlon would be a nice change.

i think ill work on the plumbing and tuning and learn how to fly the plane, maybe try some more props. People like a 12x6 but i thought that was a little light for the 55AX

There is more to reading than just reading. There is a comprehension factor in play here. The plane has enough power, and probably does not have a fuel problem because the engine flys and does not dead-stick. The prop is probably just fine. There is a recommended prop range and you are in that range. The OS .55 AX flys a Goldberg Protege around just fine (read Mike's review of that plane) and would fly my Goldberg Skylark 70 around but I had the .75 so I put that on the plane, and it flys just fine, never needing full throttle for more than verticals.

As Ken was trying to suggest, get back to basics and learn to fly on the wing. Be satisfied with the performance of the plane because that's what it does. If you want a rocket ship on take off, get something that will do just that and fly it. Hand launch it if you wish, that way there will be absolutlely no runway runup prior to lift off. But that will take a lot of power.. and here we go again.. Going balistic is not flying. That's what rockets and bullets do, with a lot of rocket fuel or gunpowder.


CGr

GaRCfield.


Many people have given you some pretty good advice. RCKen spent a lot of time typing an answer. You should heed his advice.
CGRetired Says a plane does what it does. He is absolutly right. You have to adopt because it can't. Or doesn't like to If you make it do things it doesn't like, it will turn and bite you. (or the ground)
I have three friends I fly with, both full size and models. Bob, my hangar partner, is always saying: "you have to make friends with the airplane". Give it what it wants and it will work for you instead of against you. Learn to give the plane what it wants and it will become your friend. So, you have to learn to fly each plane a little differently from the others.

Oldernut

12x5 is a break in prop for my .60 engines. I know it's an OS but still. Stop fighting the engine too.
Give it time to break in.

I just read how you found your plane, Cool!! I once had A wing explode on A big Cub and it hit in the middle of A plowed farm field with the engine still going full blast, other then the wing being gone all that happened was the LG was bent, didn't even break the prop.
MY QUESTION to you: What type of an engeneer do you want to become???
That inquiring mind thing again.

Ok, thanks again guys. And thank you Ken, again. I totally agree with everything written above, and I agree that I have been doing too much too fast (hence the other post). I am happy that I have the Decathlon, and after reading (again) what's above I am even more happy because I will learn to fly a plane, not drag one around behind a mammoth engine. Maybe the 46AX is a lot for the Dolphin and it's what I got used to. To do maneuvers with the Decathlon I have to build up speed, i.e. get more air flowing over the wings. I was just hoping that I could do this without needing close to full throttle all the time, and maybe after flying the plane more I will learn to do so.

I removed the one-way valve. At first there was no pressure outlet, so fuel was dumping through the carb like Ken said. Then I removed the plug from the extra line (that came off a T from the pressure line) and imagine that this was an extra escape of pressure, not letting full pressure get to the tank. I did have problems at half throttle on the ground - idle was fine, and full throttle sounded fine, but between the two not so much.

I am going to learn to fly this plane so well it will become an art form. I will leave it set up as-is, and ask my instructors for any tips or guidance on how to fly the plane properly. Those who see me fly do not think I am unreasonable in my plane selection. I lack tons of experience, but I do have some kind of an understanding of how these things work. I totally understand what happened to the Decathlon and what made it crash (lack of airspeed over the wings at the top of an immelmann, trying to roll and increasing the AOA, forcing a stall, and trying to use ailerons instead of rudder to correct this only made matters worse by creating more drag on the stalled surfaces, where rudder use could actually have created more lift over the wings. I have definitely been jumping into things fast, and have not slowed down enough to think about what is going on. This last crash made me do just that.

Graybeard, not sure what my degree has to do with any of this - so what if I want to be a mechanical engineer, and maybe go into aerospace - doesn't mean that I don't get excited and make mistakes about related things; I am just starting out in that, too.

So again, thank you. I won't be putting a larger engine in this bird, I will learn to fly the wing, as you suggested.

GaRCfield,
I think what Gray Beard was referring to was making sure you step back from the situation periodically to assess if you are going in the right direction. I'm an ME too, as I assume there are a lot of us in this hobby, and one of the first principles you are taught when going through school is to make sure you keep an eye on the forest, as in, "can't see the forest for the trees". It's a hard principle to abide by and one that trips us all up from time to time. It is great to ask questions, and to learn as much as you can, but remember to slow down and enjoy the hobby where you are. I like reading Mike and Ken's posts and their website, specifically about how they continue to show novices like ourselves how to fly the airplanes, that they had grown tired of. They put them through there paces and show their owners what they are capable of. That isn't because they have some fantastic talent, but they have spent the time to get to know the airplanes and to fly them on the wing. (sorry that turned into a bit of a lecture - unintentional)

As for the problems you were having, go back to what you know: The 55ax should be more than sufficient knowing they recommend a .46-.51, and the 55 is very new (model) and very powerful. You had been having some fuel related issues, so it is unclear as to whether the 55 was running 'at point'. Did you tach the prop? Do you know what a good RPM band would be for this engine? It sounds like this engine makes power lower than the .40 and .46, so with the prop you have, maybe you are on the north end of the power band (like you are running at 12K, rather than 11K), which will keep you from making good power. Maybe you want to prop up as has been suggested to get better torque out of the engine and operate in the power band.

Good luck, you'll get there, just be patient.
Curtis

Nope, just wanted to know what the young man was going to study, nothing that deep.

Well this plane has certainly been a handful and put me into place.

I crashed on the second flight while taking chances out of frustration, I deadsticked on the third day just after takeoff, and today after losing control on the runway, taxiing around and taking off, I was not able to get power in the air and landed 5' short of the runway, snapping the aluminum engine mount.

I am lucky that this is the only real damage to the plane (along with some other minor CA repairs) and against my natural instincts of bashing the plane with something big and hard into a pile of splinters I am NOT giving up on this plane. Of course this is because I understand that it's not the plane, it's the pilot.

I definitely had a lot of expectations (which equal premeditated resentments) of this plane and engine. I was not expecting breaking-in and tuning this engine to be an issue (OS 55AX) and it most certainly has (have had several people with notable tuning experience help me out). I was also thought I was expecting more performance out of the plane, though what I totally didn't realize was that I have been flying the prop since day 1, without knowing what that meant until a few days ago.

This plane is teaching me a lot of lessons. This hobby requires some patience sometimes. I got lucky with my first engine and planes in that they all flew great on the first day (because they were being flown by the prop, so minor adjustments to the airframe were able to be neglected). I definitely lack experience (and trainers and low wing trainers like the Dolphin/Four Star essentially fly themselves). There are a lot of really great people in this hobby who are willing to help and want to see me succeed. Rushing into planes and equipment is a bad idea, and making decisions based on certain deals can lead to very undesireable results. Expensive equipment and good looking planes do NOT guarantee simplicity and fun.

Anyway, the plane is very fixable, and WILL BE very flyable. I am embarrased to say that I neglected the outcome of too much control surface throw; I thought I was going to get lots of action out of the plane, when all I really got was a ton of drag added to the flying surfaces leading to stall conditions. When flying the prop, tons of throw will make your plane twist and turn do wild things at high speeds behind the prop, and the power of the prop will allow you to be careless and give you time to correct. Flying the wing is TOTALLY different. You can only make drastic moves when the plane is ready, and EVERYTHING takes more care, concentration, and understanding.

I wouldn't yet call my Super Decathlon a blast to fly. I had a few nice flights with it especially when I switched to 10% fuel and reduced the throw (engine running better and less drag on the wings), and one day (hopefully in the near future) I will get to understand the plane, learn to fly it, and perform some actual aerobatics the way real planes can perform them.

Thanks for reading, hope to have a positive update in a week or two.

To me it sounds like what you are looking for will not be found in that plane, no matter what you do with it. Fix it, sell it and start building something with a little more kick to it....something like an Extra or an Edge. In the meantime, you need to gain more experience and you can do that with the Dolphin.
From all the posts I've read from you.... sounds like you would be more satisfied with a plane that is capable of 3D and is Very acrobatic. These Scale planes like the Decathlon, cub....etc are just not gonna cut it.

just my 2 cents.

It's a mistake to classify a Decathlon in the same light as a Cub. While they are both high wing planes, the similarities end there. The Decathlon is a highly aerobatic plane that is capable of performing incredible aerobatics. In fact, the full scale Decathlon is used to teach full scale pilots aerobatics. Anybody that makes the mistake of flying a Decathlon like a Cub is going to be rewarded with a broken plane, if a pilot tries to land a Decathlon like a Cub it's more than likely going to stall and snap on them.

Ken

There are 2 flyers at my club who fly the decathlon.... one is a 90 size and other is a 46. These guys are good and they can fly the plane pretty well and I do agree it's a capable plane. I just don't think it's the plane for him, From the sound of it and from reading his posts, he wants the decathlon to do what an Extra or Edge would do. That's why I suggested he rid the plane. Honestly, he's made this clear several times that he just does not like the plane and/or the way it flies. He's forcing himself to enjoy the plane he has no interest in. In my opinion that is just asking for trouble, once you lose interest in the plane, you just don't "care" and there is a higher chance of crashing and totaling the plane. That's what happened on his first flight, he's trying to do one thing and the plane was doing something else until he got frustrated and stopped caring what the plane did.

The field I fly at, 90% of them fly giant scale Extra, Edge and Yaks. After reading his posts, he would fit perfectly into that crowd and that is why I suggested something like the Extra/edge. Not giant scale but maybe a 60 size. I honestly do believe that's more fitting of his flying style (the way he describes his style).

n19htmare,
I wasn't trying to say if the plane was for him or not. I was only trying to point out that this plane shouldn't be lumped into the same category as a Cub. I do this so that people don't wind up making this mistake and dumping the plane because they think it's going to fly like a Cub.

Ken

You guys both have some really good points. My roommate just pointed out that I've not been coming home with the ear-to-ear grin I had for the few weeks I was flying pattern with the Dolphin, so that's a sure sign that I need to concentrate on flying that plane for a while. While I enjoy working on the Decathlon and and enjoy the challenge of getting it to fly, learning to fly it properly, and the challenge of when I will be able to perform the aerobatics it is capable of, I'm not enjoying it the way I was enjoying the Dolphin, or the way I will enjoy a pattern plane, which I won't say 'is the plane for me' but is obviously what I want to be flying right now.

The Decathlon is in worse shape than I thought after the last mishap; lots of work needs to be done to the tail. After the crash today, when I was holding the 55AX in one hand and the Decathlon in the other (broken motor mount) it felt like a sign to put that engine in another plane. I'm going to do some more investigation and see what exactly needs to be done to repair the Decathlon; what seems to be a good idea right now is to take my time with it, maybe hang it up on the wall for when I'm ready to fly a plane that style, and concentrate on flying the Dolphin while I save up for a pattern plane. My roommate (who is also hooked on toys -his are musical but same principles apply) suggested finding a (pattern) plane that the 55AX will fly but would be happier with a bigger engine, so I could get a pattern plane that I would be more happy with without being terribly restricted to a 40/50 size. What a genius!

I'm trying to figure out where I went wrong. When I first got the Dolphin I felt that it was fast and sporty, and maybe a handful to fly; I thought it landed really fast. So I started to look for a high wing, relaxing plane like the Sig Rascal. By the time I was ready to buy this plane the Dolphin felt super stable, able to fly incredibly slow, basically felt like a trainer, so the Decathlon seemed like a nice addition. Then I heard "It's not a trainer." "It doesn't fly like a Cub." "It's based on the Citabria, which is 'airbatic' spelled backwards." "The Decathlon is an Aerobatic trainer, meant to teach pilots how to do aerobatic maneuvers." After I got the plane but before it was assembled I heard "The Decathlon is the plane you want to be flying pattern with." I don't even know if I knew what pattern flying was yet when I was buying this plane, let along having the idea of starting to fly pattern; I went from not even knowing pattern to flying in a pattern meet all within these (3?) weeks. I know someone asked me if I did my research and whether or not I actually thought the Decathlon would perform like my Dolphin. Hearing these things and obviously lacking experience I actually did. The big thing that I was missing and couldn't possibly have understood at the time is that the Decathlon is a plane that is to be flown by the wing, and I didn't know this but I was flying the Dolphin by the prop, so getting the Decathlon to do the things I was doing with the Dolphin is a much different venture.

I've really been struggling on getting flights in with the engine running well. When I do though I am quickly gaining a feel of the plane. I've been making adjustments to improve the flying characteristics and have been making some nice coordinated turns. I haven't had the chance to learn the descent rate of the plane, and haven't gotten to learn how it likes to perform loops and rolls, other than slowly.

Thanks for reading all this. I've been waiting a long time to get into this hobby, and have been very excited about learning to fly and the rate at which I've been learning things. Unfortunately with such excitement comes disappointment sometimes. I can't really change how excited I get over things, especially over flying pattern (and I CAN'T WAIT to get a pattern plane!) because it's just who I am. I was really loving this hobby until a week or so ago, and I love to learn about it and share what I can with other new pilots.

All I know is I want to go back to having the same fun I was having a few short weeks ago. I don't know what happened or where I lost it, but it wasn't long ago that I was bragging about how much I loved my Dolphin. Maybe it's where I started getting critical about how perfect my loops were, and how accurate my lines are. I can fly my Dolphin and am making the last minute corrections necessary to have a straight flying line but then readjust (because the plane is crooked) to get into a loop with the plane straight and level, and have to give aileron input to keep the loop on track. Boring holes in the sky isn't really fun for me anymore. I appreciate a challenge, as I appreciate the challenge of learning to correct for my crooked Dolphin, and the challenge of learning to fly an aerobatic scale plane. I think I would appreciate and enjoy these challenges a lot more if I had nice, straight pattern ship to fly too.

I wish I'd had a video camera at the field today and gotten some footage of a big Goldberg Decathalon. People could see just how maneuverable the design really is. I've also seen a couple stall and crash on people.


gaRCfield: keep in mind that RC can sometimes be a little like golf. Your "game" can go south now and then. Just keep working at it and it always comes back. I'd fly the wings of your Decathlon and Dolphin both. If they start feeling like a trainer, that means you've progressed. A really good pilot is one that takes a real "handful" plane and flys it so smooth, precise and easy that it looks like he's flying a trainer.

I must have skipped right over this part. What happened?

I had a little Cherokee mishap today as well but mine was in the pits and it was 100% my fault. It is electric and I landed & taxied in to check the batteries to find out if they were hot or puffing. I left the receiver battery on (mistake #1) but the transmitter inadvertently got shut off. Without the transmitter signal, the receiver went into fail-safe like it should have. Problem is, I had the fail safe set up wrong (mistake #2) so it went to full throttle rather than no throttle. The plane slammed into a table at full power and damaged both wing leading edges. It is easily fixable but frustrating. I am the only one to blame; I knew to set the radio up correctly but I didn't for whatever reason. Luckily only the plane got damaged, not a person. I can guarantee that will never happen again. I had my Skybolt with me though so the day wasn't a total waste.

I know what you mean, I think that certain types of planes are better for different people than others. before spads, I strated a goldberg cub, I didnt finish it yet. I also scratch built a citabria, I love that plane, crashed it on maiden flight, it tip stalled and went straight in, 4 months of building down the drain. that I got into spads. I built the coro-cub. a cub made out of coroplast, it looks real good. after flying it a little bit, i really didnt like it, it just wasnt my style of plane to fly. It was actualy more dificult to fly, due to the almost stall flying. I kindive gave up on the slower planes and now Im am more into scale and speed. I didnt used to like the speed planes, now I do. as far as the citabria, yes it does say it is a aerobatic trainer, but what they are reffering to is the plane in real life. It just sounds like the decatholon isnt your cup of tea, and thats ok because it isnt mine either. even though I really like the looks of those type of planes.

for an entry level pattern ship, have you looked at the great planes tracer? it is an entry level pattern ship. the price is right, it looks like a pettern ship and your 55 would make this plane dance. the drawback is that its a kit. but you should learn kit building, it really helps on the repairs. another good plane is the kaos. and udder kaos. both were first generation pattern planes, they can be bought also for less than $100.00. Joe Bridi was the designer on the Kaos. I cant remember the outlet that is selling his planes but if you type in Joe Bridi, it will come up.

please dont give up. maybe hang the decath from the ceiling and go for the plane that will give you the most satisfaction. good luck buddy

Joe.
Maybe it's time to cut the losses and put the equipment from the decathalon in a pattern airfame. The .55 AX would be great power in a Venus 40,
Oxalys 50, Groovy 50. These planes are made for pattern and you can stay Straight and level (pun intended) on your path. Many people here will
reccomend airframes that fly pattern well, but none of them fly like a pattern plane.

Good luck and I hope to see you flying at Jackson
Chris.

**EDIT**

Don't forget, you've got the rest of your life to fly models ahead of you. You're not going to be the most skilled pilot at the field with the nicest, straightest, best set up, and most high end aircraft. It just isn't realistic.

P.S. What do you have against the Super Decathlon? It seems like you've been fighting with it from day one. I just can't figure out why.