w8ye

My Feedback: (16)

That transmitter had v-tail mixing but no dual rates.

The plane was set up mechanically for low rates.


we had a fun fly and cook out at the field and one of the contest events was to fly as high as you could for 10 sec and cut the engine. The plane that stayed up the longest was a Viper with a K&B40 rear venturi engine. That thing just glided forever, There was no other plane close to it. That K&B wouldn't throttle, it was wide open or quit

YUKONFLYR

I built a Duraplane Aerobat just like that in the same Yellow with blue stripe for my second plane. My instructor said that it would not fly very well and I sold it fully built with a OS 46fx[:@]
He was muttering something about plastic PVC pipe planes ect. My instructor instead approved a GP big stick and then a Sig Something extra.

I figured that the Duraplane aerobat would fly nice!

w8ye

My Feedback: (16)

I like the Duraplane on windy - choppy days. It has a high wing loading.

The other planes you have are good ones too. The Sig Something Extra is a very versatile plane. With low rates it is gentle enough to use as a trainer. But with high rates and a lot of expo and plenty of power, it can be a barrel of fun. I saw a relatively new guy get one into a stall on final and he just maintained that stall all the way to touch down. It was a complete non event.

bruce88123

HUH? A split "S" is a half roll followed by a half loop during which you LOSE altitude and can be done with a glider or the engine at idle. Perhaps you meant an Immelman turn? Half loop (up) followed by a half roll to level which gains altitude? Surely you aren't saying the Raptor can't get enough altitude to perform a split "S".

I do agree that it is NOT a good primary trainer though, maybe a second plane.

TFF

It is not the planes but the owners who dont want help or it is their one plane and wont ever buy another so they get something "good" and they dont want it scratched. Did see a guy who said he knew how to fly try to fly a Spitfire; you know the rest.

gsoav8r

My Feedback: (6)

Please tell me I read this post incorrectly.
Did some "I can fly anything pilot" really crash a newbies plane and then just leave the newb with a busted up model?
Did the senior pilot or anyone offer to fix or help fix the newbies airplane?

opjose

Answering the original post:

BAD "first planes" that tend to show up at an airfield, include.

WARBIRDS ( other than the PTS P-51 )
Spacewalkers ( though they are decent second planes )
Overly LIGHT foamies ( whcih get tossed around in the breeze )

I've seen people show up with

Addictions, Brios, Extra 260's, foam Scale planes ( F-35, etc ), Delta Wingers, Typhoon 3D's, or anything sold at an LHS... strangely I've not seen people show up with biplanes as a first plane.

HighPlains

My Feedback: (1)

There are more that think they can than really exist.

w8ye

My Feedback: (16)

A unknown potential pilot showing up at the field presents several problems like liability of his airplane and others property.

You must be nice and encouraging to the person
You must spend time and sight the plane from a few feet away for symmetry and squareness.
Check the balance
Check the construction for mechanical soundness of all components

I've spent a couple hours with guys getting it going.

Any more transmitter buddy box compatibility presents a problem

Club trainers become more attractive

NorfolkSouthern

I haven't seen a first-time pilot show up with a bipe, except for that one time in Albuquerque. Perhaps they look a little more intimidating to beginners. I had the opportunity to try a friend's Spacewalker on several occasions. It is smooth and predictable, tracks strait, and not overly responsive. Slow flight characteristics are good. I asked the owner how the plane handles stalls, and he said that it stays level with little or no variation in pitch. It is a low-wing taildragger and it definitely lacks the stability of a trainer, which would make it at least second plane.

I have seen Extras crash at my club on landings, and this is mostly due to pilot error. They get the nose too high and the wing stops flying. One of our part-time instructors is a college student who bought a Studacher as a second plane, and it seems to be the most difficult to land even with a fairly fast approach. He has snapped his fuselage and repaired it at least a couple times. That thing makes me wonder if a Mustang would have been easier.

NorfolkSouthern

daveopam

My Feedback: (9)

Bruce, It will do one. But has to be done just right. I did the first one starting from 100' pulled and climbed 50' rolled and pulled again. Had the elev throw been more I would have been fine. The way it was I got really close to the ground. So on the second attempt I pulled to a 45 degree climb and tried to climb 200' to a total of 300'. After climbing 150' or so it started to loose airspeed in a hurry. I was able to roll and pull but the plane was so out of shape it looked terrible. Maybe my example was bad. So to restate it better. With a Rossi 45 it will only climb 175' or so at a 45 degree angle before it stalls. Most trainers will climb out of site at a 45.

david

Mr67Stang

As I read the original post it seem the discussion was suposed to be after the pilot had successfully soloed a trainer then they go to a second plane that maybey should have been a 3rd or 4th plane. When I originally learned I bought a 40 size Pheonix Decathalon and an OS .50sx for power. Maiden flight was a tipstal and the subsequent ripping out of the cockpit framework. I rebuilt. I successfully flew it a few times but take off was always squirrelly and scary. Eventually the plane suffered a catastrophic tip stall on take off and I decided to let her die that time... I was to frustrated with it to rebuild. I now, about 2 1/2 years later, want another one just to prove I can do it... It's my skeleton in the closet that still haunts me today.

Additionally the other day I did a trim flight on a Hanger 9 Hellcat with a zenoah 20cc gasser for a fairly new pilot (3 months flying) I flew the plane around and put it through the paces and handed him his radio and said it flys great. He made 1 turn then when he went for the second he got to slow and tip stalled. It was agonizing to watch as he fought the plane all the way to the ground... Total loss.

maddog 71

We have a 9 year old that pretty much learned flyin hot rod planes and hes actually doing pretty good now on his own here is his Great planes Extra 300 with os 70 4 stroke in it that he learned with and soloed with it hes still flyin it at this time ! Hes pretty much a Natural

w8ye

My Feedback: (16)

What a success story. But the young ones learn faster than us old timers

NorfolkSouthern

You are fairly close, Mr67Stang. But, I would like to go a little further. You can say, I'm sort of looking for the "holy grail" here. Part of what I hope to accomplish on this thread, is to sniff out that one very special pilot who's thumbs are partially controlled through divine intervention. The one who could master a 3D Edge 540 at a very young age, and twirl it about in a way that defies gravity. Then, mate him or her with that one very nasty, mean tempered, unforgiving, tip-stalling monster that will reach down and bite with no provocation at all. Or, very little warning at least. Then grab some popcorn and watch what happens [>:]. And if our hero can tame that little beast, then he will have morphed into one of the immortal gods of the control sticks; or the next Bill Hempel if you would .

A second goal here, would be to brainstorm perhaps, and discuss the characteristics of some airframes. For example: What makes a second plane a second plane? What variables would cause it to end up a fourth plane instead? If someone with an average learning capability is inspired to get that 27% Edge with the DA-150, what would help them achieve their goals? How about someone with an interest in turbines?

And that's another point of this thread. By now, I'm sure you have the necessary skills to set up that Decathlon and put it to some good use. My second plane was a Cessna, which I had no real problem with until I fed it too much elevator on takeoff. It was never the same.

That, of course, helps this discussion. Your reflexes and hand/eye coordination with the sticks have developed to the point where you know when the plane is traveling too slowly, without even being conscious of it. And, you know how to correct without having to think first. These are fine motor skills, and they can only be developed through progressive practice. It's why they develop planes for beginners that allow more time to react, because new pilots can't make moves instinctively just yet. They need time to think it through first. It's lot like learning how to type. You start with a few letters, then eventually learn the whole keyboard. After a while, you're typing at 60 words per minute without realizing it.

NorfolkSouthern

w8ye

My Feedback: (16)

A lot of this has to be developed by experience and a few hard knocks

HighPlains

My Feedback: (1)

Pretty good questions.

Number one thing is wing loading, airfoil, and wing platform.

For a 40 sized model, a great second model will have a dry wing loading in the range of 18-22 oz per square foot of wing area. The airfoil will be either semi-symmetrical or symmetrical, and most importantly a wing of constant chord with an aspect ratio in the range of 5 to 6.

Higher wing loading, and wing taper gets novice pilots into trouble. Low aspect designs just don't fly all that well, and limits what a pilot can learn about flight.

NorfolkSouthern

And that raises another question. The Great Planes Cherokee is a favorite of one of the top reviewers on this site as a second plane. However, it has a wing-loading of 26 ounces, a bit more than the Goldberg Tiger 2, and comparable to many standard sport models. No bad stall habits were indicated. The wing is a constant cord, semi-symmetrical and I'm sure that helps improve the handling and flight qualities.

Also, what is aspect ratio? How is it calculated? What is the difference between a wing with a low aspect and high aspect design? I am quite familiar with airfoil, and how it influences an airframe's behavior. A thicker airfoil generates more lift and drag, and a thinner airfoil makes the airframe more slippery. The cleaner aerodynamics create less drag, which allows more speed. Of course, this also increases the length of the landing approach.

HighPlains

My Feedback: (1)

With the decrease of building skills over the past decade or two, fewer and fewer people have flown anything other than lead sleds. Which leads people to think that 26 oz is a normal wing loading for a nice Sunday flyier. If your only interest is to plow about at wide open throttle doing the basic roll or loop, then fine. They fly great.

But an airplane is far more maneuverable with the lighter wing loading, and able to operate over a wider envelope of speeds than the portly model. If you consider the equation of F=MA, then with a small mass, you can achieve a greater acceleration. An this allows the lighter wing loaded model to change directions faster..

As to aspect ratio, traditionally people take the span and divide it by the average chord of the wing. 50 inch wingspan divided by 10 in chord gives an aspect ratio of 5. But with tapered wings or ellipital or semi-tapered (like a Cessna), this requires too much math.

So the easy way shortcut is to simply take the square of the wingspan and divide it by the wing area.

Aspect ratio = wingspan^2/wing area

HighPlains

My Feedback: (1)

Not necessarily true. The fastest Formula One racer of all time (the Nemesis) used an airfoil that was 14% thick.

During landing, the induced drag goes way up on any airframe approaching stall speed. Of two designs with the same wing loading, the higher aspect design will land slower due to operating at a lower angle of attack since it's losses to vortexes will be lower.

NorfolkSouthern

Very interesting. I would assume you would prefer something that's light and responsive with a broad flight envelope. I can perfectly understand the reasoning. Is it OK if I ask a bit of a loaded question? I hope you don't mind, but here goes: Have you ever flown a plane with a low aspect ratio and high wingloading (a flying brick, in other words)? And if you have, how was the experience? All in good humor, HighPlains. I would really like to read some more good stories. Feel free to chime in, and thanks for your input.

NorfolkSouthern

Gray Beard

My Feedback: (-1)

When someone asks me to take up there NEXSTAR it's an instant no. Out of five of them last summer they are all dead. I keep hearing here what great trainers they are but I haven't seen it.

flyinrog

My Feedback: (1)

Well. I am on the opposite side of this fence, narrow that it may be....in 1994 I bought an eagle 11 trainer, built it, the lhs owner helped me to cover it, his second in command was to train me and well....he my friends , was an ass...I would be at the field for hours waiting for him to decide to show up,,after 10 minutes of wasting his time with me ...Mr Wonderful would just wander off ..he and the owner would just sit back and talk about how bad everybody was.....so I went the normal routine, tried it myself and crashed 6 or so years later I try again on my own at the schoolyard up the street with GWS lecky(electric) plane...LHS went under..so its like 10 years later , same 2 guys out at the field ,,could not believe (have to watch your mouth here Rog) I meet the club pres and this guys name comes up...the pres said the same thing as me..smart guy..he's an ass!!!Met some real nice guys at my club, I fly in the mornings during the week so as not to take up space from the guys that can only get out there on the weekends....plus I am a kneeknockin flyfisher out there half the time....mostly I do 1/2a, but have moved up into .15 size too,,...well just thought I'd share....Rog

NorfolkSouthern

The Nexstar is what I originally started with. The guys at the field recommended that I remove the flaps, so I did. It flew quite fast for a trainer. When I re-installed the flaps, they made a world of difference in adding lift and slowing the plane down. I also had to adjust the elevator quite a ways down. I will admit, the Superstar I had the next year was a little more manageable, and I could do anything it was capable of before I got the ill-fated Cessna. I just may get another one from Great Planes, only this time spend more attention on the build. That way, it seems like I can draw a better comparison. Although many people say that Cessnas fly like trainers and Cubs are more challenging, I tend to see the opposite because of the stall characteristics. But, I should keep in mind that traits were more pronounced after all the repairs that season.

Rog: thanks for chiming in. I know you fly a lot of 1/2A, which I find interesting in that the reed-type engines don't have a throttle. Of course, this means you have to keep flying until the tank's empty. The smaller glow planes are my favorites to watch at the field. There's just something about them that the electrics don't seem to have. I'm still thinking about setting up the Stinger 10 with the Thunder Tiger GP-15 engine, but I'm getting some thoughts that the little hornet could be my achilles heel!

NorfolkSouthern

qldviking

one trainer to stay away from is the nitro planes super trainer, I got one for my lady and after carefully building it we went to the flying field and got the instructor there to check it out and start teaching her to fly. It had a nicely run in os70fs in it, all new electrics etc. It didnt last the return leg of its first flight, the wings just made like a butterfly and folded up about 4 inches each side of the fuse, right where the joiner spar ended, needless to say no-one was impressed. even the motor is not worth repairing [:'(]