Ideal trainer characteristics
 

For those who have instructed or at least who have flown a trainer enough to have moved on from them, I'm curious if there is a consensus on what makes the ideal trainer. I'll offer a couple of my thoughts and look forward to hearing from others.

1, Very predictable flying characteristics. I don't want a trainer that is twitchy or makes unexpected movements in response to wind turbulence.
2. Good visibility- trainers need a trim scheme that is very easy to orient at a distance since new pilots often fly too far away from themselves.

What else do you guys like to see in a trainer?

3. Big. As big as you can afford or transport. Wind doesn't bother them as much, and easier to see.
4. Easy to assemble and easy to repair.

Gentle flyer, self correcting to a point. Stable, good power plant not an Evo .46.
If operated by a beginner a good instructor.

A high wing, flat bottom airfoil, preferably 60 sized plane, with moderate, but not excessive dihedral.
My first trainer was a Great Planes PT-40. I followed the manufacturers recommendations and built it with the "trainer wing" which has lots of dihedral. It was a very stable plane, almost too stable. At times I felt like I was fighting with the plane just to get it to go where I wanted it to go!
After a 15 year hiatus from the hobby, I'm building a PT-60 with the lower dihedral sport wing.
Really, any of the time tested trainers out there will serve the purpose well.

I agree wholeheartedly with the point on dihedral. I think most classic trainers have around 5 degrees of dihedral, which is great when you are flying with 3 channels. But when you have the option to use ailerons to roll into the turns, the negatives outweigh the positives. A high wing with maybe 2 degrees of dihedral is still pretty stable. The only negative is that it won't self recover from a sideslip stall fast enough to save the plane.

And yes, definitely not an Evo .46!

Sig Kadet
Goldberg Falcon
Fantastic trainers.

A good trainer will not incorporate "training wheels" like that in the Apprentice.

These self correcting gadgets hinder a new pilot by creating a dependency on electronic gizmos. They may help a newbie to get into the air quickly, but in the end. they hinder the development of the novice.

While I prefer the flying qualities of the Sig Kadet Senior, it is more fragile, and harder to repair, than the Sig LT-40, or Goldberg Eagle II. Both of these jig lock constructed models fly well, while being solidly built. To me, these two air frames are the best trainers on the market.

One thing I add to all the club trainers I've built is a dual-strut nose gear. Beginner landings are hard on nose gears, and when the usual sort of nose gear gets bent it makes takeoffs unnecessarily hard.

Well it depends on the individual;whether the person is going to join an established club or strike it out on their own.
If they are going to join a club then the typical 40-60 size balsa high wing/high dihedral trainer glow or electric is fine as someone will more than likely be with them for awhile as an instructor.

If they are on their own then a foam electric high wing with SAFE is a better choice. Easier to repair and the safe really works well. Yes the safe is like a set of training wheels and some will use it as a crutch but eventually they will fly without it. The nice thing is that the training wheels can be taken on and off with a flip of a switch.. Very handy when a new pilot is trying intermediate maneuvers,gets into trouble ,and there is no instructor to bail them out.

In my club, few seem to advance past the "Safe" stage. All they talk about is which model they can buy next, that uses that technology.

The "crutch" is there, and they don't want to advance beyond it's usage.

I have done my share of instructing and have a few thoughts

Must be very hard to stall, OK hammerheads are not preventable but a good trainer can be dragged of the ground semi prop hanging then, horsed around in tight slow turns with mammoth control movements without stalling.

+ 1 on the dual leg nose gear. But single leg is OK as long as the leg can be easily replaced at the field.

Must present a good recognizable silhouette in the air so the beginner does not lose orientation. Training on a delta or a Zagi is a bad idea.

Spare parts should be available eg you can buy a new fuz if the wing survives as they often do.

When I learned to fly back in the 60s a good trainer could recover itself from any situation and resume normal flight without losing to much altitude if you just put the tranny down and walked away. I am not sure that this is still needed with an instructor and buddy box. I have no experience with the so called safe autopilots but can see the value to someone trying to learn without an instructor.

Despite my love of IC engines maybe electric is the way to go.

Wings should be attached with rubber bands and not bolted on.

Trainers should have a light wing loading and be a little overpowered so they can power their way out of trouble without the learner having to baby them back up to flying speed.

BIG IS BETTER. The best trainer I ever used was a 12 foot span Telemaster. Things happened SLOWLY.

Same can be said for kids with training wheels on their bike. Some didn't need them on for very long whiles others had them on for a long time.
Always impress the importance of flying in "normal rc" mode to all new pilots flying a safe equipped plane.

My club has a very solid training program, and so I haven't seen many with the SAFE equipped planes. IMO, beginners think about crashing too much. They seem to think crashes are a random and inevitable event in RC flying. I wait for beginners to say something about crashing, and I'm ready with a retort that basically says that every crash is preventable, every crash is caused by human error, and it is entirely possible to do this hobby without ever crashing. Crashes shouldn't be expected. I don't want to set them up for too much disappointment when it finally does happen, but I think it's more beneficial to start with a positive mentality than to expect trouble and make it a self-fulfilling prophecy. To my mind, the SAFE system plays on that beginner fear and from what I'm seeing here, it may create a need for itself in the mind of the pilot that makes him fear any plane that doesn't have it.

I think every new pilot should be taught basic aerobatics in addition to takeoffs, circuits, and landings. They increase comfort and confidence in the plane so much and really up the fun factor as well. The SPA novice sequence is a great set of maneuvers to start, so I think there's a lot to be said for a trainer that will do all of those moves with at least some grace. The Avistar definitely can, as can the venerable old Ugly Stick.

So, are you saying that every trainer should be full house with a semi-symmetrical wing equipped with barn door ailerons rather than the tried and true flat bottomed wing with the full trailing edge strip ailerons?

I have to agree with this in a lot of ways while also admitting I have only trained a couple family members to fly. When my dad wanted to learn to fly with the buddy box I got a Kadet Seniorita thinking that would be an excellent trainer. First flights did not go well with it, maybe it was that I have no idea how to train? He complained that it just wouldn't do what he wanted, I said it was the pilot, not the plane. Not long after that we went to a swap meet and he found a Falcon III (he always thought the Falcon would be a good trainer, he even has a partially built Falcon 56 from somewhere around 1978 in his workshop). I said OK, I would train him on that instead. Training did go better, but he still said it felt like he couldn't get it to go where he wanted it to. He only made a few flights with it before I figured out that he was complaining about it getting knocked around by the wind. So I said well, you need a bigger plane, something that will keep going better in the wind. How about a Stik? Not really what I first think of when I think trainer, but OK. We find a Hangar 9 Ultra Stick 60 and he has been flying that, fully symmetrical airfoil, 4 channels and all. I'll be dumbfounded, he did a fantastic job with it. His progress was better, and he says that he likes how it can float so slowly and not stall and fall out on him when he gets it into a strange orientation. So maybe something a little more aerobatic but still light isn't the worst idea ever for training.

I'm not real sure what the style of ailerons has to do with it, but I am definitely a fan of the semi-symmetrical wings along with a floaty design. What most of us would consider a traditional trainer (Kadet, et al) was designed for flying around in circles on 3 channels and being as slow as possible on calm days. They are incredibly good for that, but the limitations are pretty big. My point above though was more of a training philosophy than a point on equipment selection. I think if you can't do a loop, a roll, a stall turn, and hold inverted for at least a few seconds then you aren't really trained to fly RC yet.

Regarding 109...Someday's post, I think Ugly Sticks make outstanding trainers. With docile control throws and a forward CG, they are incredibly stable in the wind and are so easy to fly. In fact, I have a pretty old one with maybe 1 degree of dihedral built into the wing that I plan to instruct with next year. It's not my ideal choice, but it will be perfectly serviceable in that role.

The traditional thinking has been to use the slowest, floatiest plane possible for training pilots. But I disagree, especially when you want to teach on windy days like we have so often here in Texas. Planes need to be slow enough for pilots to keep up with them, but most students get dialed in to the plane pretty quickly and can track it. So if I give up 5 mph in cruising speed between a Kadet and an Avistar but gain the smoothness of the Avistar, I think that's a great trade.

Deltaray is a great little trainer plane. Have taught a number of guys with it. Flies so well I ended up buying one myself to teach with and ended up modifying it with brushless motors.

Here is my experience: I taught myself on a Top Flite Schoolmaster with rudder and throttle servo; it had a 39 inch wingspan, weighed 20 oz, and was powered by a Cox 049. Later I added elevator. The plane was slow, easy to learn on, and when it crashed there was so little mass to it that damage was minimal to none. Engine started easily by hand, field box was smaller than a lunch box. It was my only plane for about three years and I flew it a lot and loved every minute of it. If I'd had a larger plane it would have been a project every time I went to the flying field. With the little guy, I would just grab it and go. You fly a smaller plane closer in. If something goes wrong, it's not way out in the woods or the corn field, it's close and easy to retrieve. I did not want or need a larger airplane.

Then I joined a club and decided I wanted to do touch and goes. I got a Livewire Champ powered by an OS 15 FP (which started easily by hand), three channels, RET. It had a 590 sq in wing 55 inches long, and weighed 2 lbs 14 oz. I flew it for years and loved it. It did loops, barrel rolls, stall turns, rolling circles, etc., but no cross controlling because no ailerons.

For both these, rudder was operated from the right stick, but with the Champ I had an early computer radio and I programmed it so rudder worked off either stick. That way I got used to taxiing and taking off with the left stick and flew with the right. As a bonus, I had "dual rates" by using both sticks together when I wanted extra rudder.

Finally I started flying aileron planes and the transition was absolutely a non-event. Then I had fun learning to use the rudder for cross controlling, coordinated turns, etc.

But I always flew my first plane with the Cox till it ran out of fuel. I often still do that. I taught me not to fear dead sticks.

For me, the whole process was pure pleasure. There are lots of ways to do it. If a beginner really wants a large plane, then he should go for it. But there is absolutely nothing wrong with learning on small ones. I think the manufacturers sold us a bill of goods with the idea that you need a 40 size trainer. That is complete nonsense. Also, I see beginners putting very powerful engines on these planes. It's OK for dual instruction, but it's not a good thing when the beginner solos and starts flying on his own. I've seen too many inexperienced pilots cause dangerous situations because they move the throttle level and instantly have more power than they can handle. Don't tell me about how power will "get you out of trouble". You can get into a lot more trouble with too much power than too little. And remember, full scale pilots have no where near the power to weight ratio we have, and their butts are in the airplane.

Yep, staying out of trouble is a lot better than being able to get out of it. That's an interesting path your took in learning, Buzzard Bait. You started on a very simple plane, what many of us today would call a toy since it's not fully controllable. And to stay on that plane for 3 years? I know guys who were on their second plane after their 6 lesson with a .40 size trainer and on their 5th or 6th before the first year was up. I'm not criticizing either approach. Rather, it's surprising to me that a pilot continued to find such a simple plane interesting for so long. This is so different than the way I try to teach and the way I usually advise new pilots. I go for the quickest route to building skills so that the pilot can be independent and flying any kind of plane he wants ASAP. But I guess as long as the student is having fun and getting stick time in he's doing the hobby and learning as he goes. And that's great too. You've taught me something.

Thanks for the comments, Jester. I agree that what I did is not the best path for most people. Especially for someone whose motivation is to fly a big warbird.

What I felt I learned from teaching myself is that bigger is not always better, smaller planes have some advantages, and the main thing is for the student to start having fun pretty quickly, which I did, right away. It really kept the motivation up. Maybe a good way would be a short intro on a buddy box, start flying solo on a light electric, then back to the buddy box for a hotter plane, more advanced methods. Or maybe just get really good with the small, light plane, then get more advanced with some coaching. I'd like to go back to learning again from a good pattern flyer.

How did I have fun with a simple plane for three years? Well, at first it felt like a real victory just to get in some short flights in calm weather and come home with my plane intact. Then I figured out that I should be able to fly my light, low powered airplane in the wind by doing S turns toward the wind like the slope soarers do. I was pretty excited to find I could do it on windy days with dark clouds overhead. Then I started practicing landings while I still had no elevator servo. I discovered that by bringing the plane in on a bit of a curve and then slowly reversing the rudder I could bring the nose up for a flare. Fun, especially when I got so I could practically land at my feet! The nose would be down coming in, then gently start to rise close to the ground; this was in a glide, so it was quiet. Very pretty. I would send the plane upwind out over the lake and then when the engine stopped, a long circling glide as the wind brought the plane back.Then I switched my throttle servo to start working the elevator with the engine full bore the whole flight, which was only 2 or 3 minutes long. Then I finally bought another servo and had three channels. Once I got a 25 minute flight soaring the little plane with a flock of buzzards.

Also, the plane was all-wood and I built it myself, which added to the enjoyment. I built the radio from an Ace kit. You might wonder why it took me so long to get a third servo, but a mini servo was $35 dollars back then, and that's a lot in today's money.

I fly much more capable airplanes now, but I can't say I'm having more fun now than I did then.

Jim

Not really a characteristic, but if you are building your first plane, then cover it with a bright colour, not white. I found that white airplanes are fairly easy to lose orentation on a cloudy day, and that was the main reason that my instructor had to take over control. Sometimes I thought that the airplane was inverted.

As for the airfoil, thats a tough question. Semi symetrical will take longer to "outgrow", but I started on a LT 40, and the wing came off, so I bought a avistar. Flying was similar, but taking off and landing was slightly more difficult for me, especially without the flaps.

Oh I think that's absolutely an important consideration, Krokodyl. I'm a fan of orange or yellow for the top with a dark line at the leading edges of the wing and tail, then a dark bottom for the wing and tail and a light colored fuselage. Complimentary colors contrast the best at the longest distances, so yellow and purple and blue and orange are good choices. Red and green or red and blue don't work, because at distance they will turn to the same shade of grey.

My first trainer was a PT40. It had Cub yellow on the fin and rudder, the top of the horizontal stab and elevator, The top of the wing, and the top of the fuselage. It had a darkish red (forget the exact shade) on all the lower surfaces. There was a black stripe hiding the color separation line.
I called it the Flying Hot Dog, or The Winged Weenie. I found it easy to maintain orientation. I'm currently building a PT60 (15 year hiatus from the hobby) and thinking about repeating that color scheme. I may call it WW2!

I agree with jester. Light colors on top. Darker colors on the bottom.