well as the title says .... would you recommend a thermal powered glider as a first plane if so which one and why ? and if not also why ? this question was asked of me and I wasn't exactly sure how to answer it so I thought I would take a poll and see what you guys think ?

Hi,

A Multiplex "Easy Star" is one of the easiest three channel electric gliders to learn on and beginners pick it up very quickly. However there is still a real learning curve when they move on to four channel and faster models.

Cheers,

Colin

A powered glider is an excellent way to start.

The reasons are many, but to touch on a few...

They turn much easier with a rudder than more advanced models do, and for many people it's easier to learn rudder turns than aileron turns. Hook up the rudder servo to the aileron channel so they get used to turning with their right hand so that it makes graduating to ailerons much easier.

It's relatively easy to learn to fly with a thermal glider for one very good reason. They're made to fly by themselves. Thermal flight involves tactics, not really flying prowess. The thermal birds are very stable if left alone, and to fly most efficiently, the pilot leaves them alone as much as possible.

Back during my glider days, it was common to teach a guy to fly in a morning. He'd be solo by the afternoon. Solo everything: launch, flight, landing. That is, if he brought the usual 2m as his first glider.

Gliders also have very few hidden traps. No engine run that has to be tuned to be reliable and that can ruin the flying for example. Nothing much to go wrong or that can be setup badly.

Ok would any of you say that there are cons to learning on a powered thermal glider if so what are they ?

Sure:

1. You won't have any "extra power" to "get out of trouble", so you will need to learn how to fly the plane within its design parameters.

2. You won't be able to "3D"

3. ...... ? I'm working on it...? Surely, there must be something else.

I can't think of a single downside.

I know some kids who are outstanding 3-D pilots. Last year, one of them had a flameout with plenty of altitude, but without power, he didn't know how to "fly" the plane in. He stalled it all the way to the ground.

The only bad thing I can think of is wind is not your friend. They are fun. You wont be ready to fly a war bird but moving up to a .40-.60 trainer would only be a transition if you really learned to fly the glider. I have a Butterfly 11 in the box ready for some slow fun.

I saw a similar thing happen with a 50cc Yak. The pilot is an excellent flyer, but has only flown small foamies and large gas 3d planes. He had a deadstick and stalled it all the way down to the runway and destroyed the plane. Knowing how to fly with no power is definitely a good thing.

The Raiden is a great flying, RTF electric glider. A guy in my club used it for a lot of the basics of learning to fly. I also second the Easy Star, though the Easy Star isn't a very efficient glider and doesn't thermal very well at all. When I feel like just floating along with my Easy Star, I keep just enough power on to turn the prop, 2-3 clicks of throttle. This helps offset the drag just enough to allow me pretend that it has an efficient glide

The only draw back is that there IS a big jump from a 3-channel glider to most conventional powered planes. Basically you wind up moving up to what is almost a primary trainer next anyway, so if you have a good instructor and buddy box rig, you can save time and money by just starting with the primary trainer.

Of course that assumes a "goal" of wanting to fly powered models like warbirds or aerobatic planes and so on. If that's not the desire, then who knows, you may find gliders to be your "thing", and you may go from a basic intro powered glider to one of those amazing high performance gliders (with some steps in between) and so on.

The only problem I noticed in guys I'd taught to fly with gliders, when they went to power they didn't get the usual timeouts when the glider flies itself. Some of them were "behind the airplane" almost right away. And were uncomfortable until they got up to speed, till they got used to the more nearly constant attention needed.

Yep, that.

It will also depend a lot on the plane the pilot is moving to, and how long they've been flying the glider. More stick time is more stick time and helps. In the cases of the students I've worked with, the transition plane was a smaller electric, which compounds the "behind the plane" issue because they had to keep it close to be able to see the darn thing, and keeping a small, faster plane closer magnifies being behind the plane a bit. Landing is also different. Not harder, really, but belly landings with gliders don't require the same finesse with the flair, while powered planes are easier to get into a short runway because they don't keep on going in ground effect like a (non-spoiler) glider will.

I forgot to add, that if you don't have an instructor (or don't want one) or you have time issues with getting instruction, or whatever, then a powered glider is probably the best way to get flying.

On the flip side, this is exactly how I learned to fly. When I "graduated" to glow engines, I was shooting landings with my instructor. My engine quit and he started to grab the box. I told him, I knew how to land a plane with no engine and so my first solo landing was dead-stick. Picture perfect, just couldn't taxi back to the pits.

The whole reason I asked is this is how I taught myself to fly as well now i flew gliders powered and thermal 2 meter and 3 and so on exlucively for many years , however the transition to powered glow models proved very difficult I had to back track to powered electric park flyers just to get the hand of the amount attention it took to keep flying as opposed to floating around , so the transition seemed difficult , but i was able to teah myself how to fly in a relatively short time , so when i was asked if this is a good route to take as a beginner i was not sure how to answer the question ,
your views have given me a new insight

thanks !

Ok let me ask this if a powered thermal glider has many advantages and not many disadvantages how come there are none listed as a good first plane for a beginner ?

just thought I would stir the pot a little , LOL

The Radian is an excellent beginner/intermediate glider, we have a couple at my club's field they are very good performers.


After reading through all of this thread I think some folks here are making too much of big deal about converting from glider to glow powered flight or vice-versa.

I don't know how most of you folks fly, but IMO it pretty much takes full attention to keep track of a glider especially at higher altitudes and around cloud bases. In R/C there just isn't too much time for a mental vacation be it glider or glow/gas powered airplane. Yes the glider is slower, but if your effectively tracking around trying to find thermals you have to fly the bird.

Personally I think a pilot gains a good deal of valuable experience flying gliders in learning how to fly the wing vs. a power curve. Case in point the "Miracle on the Hudson" full scale yes, but the principles are the same.

The only reason gliders aren't listed is that most beginners don't WANT to fly a glider. On the contrary, most of them want to start with a JET or WARBIRD or some other plane that is way too advanced.

We have enough of a problem convincing them that they need to start with a trainer!

Looks like I am going to go against the grain here.......there are just too many good 4 channel planes available that aren't that expensive, that would justify starting out on anything but a 4 channel trainer.....as long as that is where the student wants to wind up on a 4 channel or more airplane......
It is much harder to un-learn something than it is to learn to learn something.

I have and would recommend the Multiplex easy glider Pro.

Very durable and it has ailerons.

I love to fly it as a break from the glow models..


Pop

I think you answered your own question , you are right it is harder to unlearn something as opposed to learning , which is why beginners are encouraged to start off the right way so that they don't develop bad habits that they later on have to unlearn

exactly why I said too many good 4 channel trainers out there if the student desires to fly 4 or more channel airplane.....you don't practice football to play basketball........why not start learning from day one to fly a glow powered aircraft?

No, but the kid who grew up to be a football player probably learned to throw a red rubber ball first.

Actually, having taught a couple of guys to fly gliders when they took up R/C. And then taught them about power when they decided to make that transition a couple of years later. And taught guys to fly power when they took up R/C.

Yeah, bottom line, learning to fly an R/C airplane with a glider is an excellent idea. And it doesn't cause any problems later, but as a few experienced guys have mentioned, it actually makes the move easier. Nothing to unlearn at all. Even moving from a Rudder/Elevator glider to a full house power trainer would not entail any unlearning. R/E setup is with both on the right stick and flies almost exactly like most people fly with full house, put some left into the stick with a little elevator to turn left. The dihedral that WILL be there will roll the glider left. Looks pretty much to a beginner like he'd given the sucker some left aileron. Nope, nothing to unlearn or relearn. Nobody thinks "rudder" when moving that right stick, they think "roll into the turn".

I'd suggest that the flyers I know who have glider experience, be it from their learning R/C with one or later into the hobby, are absolutely better flyers hands down. And the couple of guys who I know who learned R/C with gliders who went into power really head and shoulders above the average power modeler. Problem with that observation is I don't know but just those guys who did that. Small samples etc etc.

I also never met a beginner who wanted to learn within a time limit, or one who needed to learn in the shortest time possible. So the idea that starting off with a glider is somehow bad from an efficiency standpoint escapes me.

LOL you kill me ! LOL

Maybe so, but let me relate my history with the switch. I started with a two channel hand launch/high start gliders - the Sig Riser. It survived well enough to get me through the basics and my friend/mentor and I sailed or gliders until we parted for college. I then had a few sessions with a COX foam (we had "foamies" in 1978) three channel trainer in the Avaition Club (flying, not taking off or landing) in the pre-buddy box or simulator days of yore.

Then I tried to build my own four channel Sig Kadet. I wanted it slow, so I chose the least powerful "recommended" engine. I built it heavy, and further complicated things by needing to add a LOT of nose weight to balance it. As I remember I put a dozen lead .357 bullets (.27 pounds - 4 ounces) in the nose to hit the proper C.O.G.

Then, on the advice in a book I had from the library, I hand launched the Kadet (engine off & no fuel) to be sure it was trimmed properly. First rebuild added all the more weight. First powered flight eventually getting the engine to run resulted in a stall on takeoff and another rebuild (it was horribly underpowered with a .25 and was likely also nose heavy). Many crashes with no real success and I sold ALL my R/C gear and was out of the hobby for the next 18 years or so. I had even done glow free-flight and control-line and I was stymied with a four channel powered trainer.

So, yes, gliders can teach you to fly. Powered gliders even better probably. But having someone get you running and trimmed on that first flight can save a LOT of grief.


As a PS -

I have a reputation in our club of being unflapable with deadsticks. With a glider every flight is a deadstick. A few years ago I thought the $77 new .50 Kangke engine sounded like a deal. That summer I had probably 50 deadsticks from two minutes into my flights. Never put the model down off the runway or even hard enough to damage her. Though I was keeping some height because the engine was suspect. Same model went to pieces a year later when I did an inverted limbo at full throttle and caught a wingtip on the ground (reengined with a Super Tigre G-51).

Is there a lesson here?