OK for second plane?
 

I just found this plane online, Pacific Aeromodel Knockabout 40 , and absolutely LOVE it! I'm wondering how it would be for a second plane. It is a low-wing trainer style, however they say it's very capable of aerobatics, as demonstrated with a video. It gets set up with differential throws (mechanically, not with radio), which is a little intimidating, but they say that this is to counter the 'high lift airfoil'. It appears to be a semi-symmetrical airfoil.

http://pacaeromodel.com/Knockabout/Knokab.htm

Also wondering if anyone has any experience with this plane or manufacturer. The directions look AWESOME and looks like a quality build from the factory. It has built in mounts to convert to a tail dragger, which I think it looks like it should be one in the first place. I also like the Hangar-9 cherokee, but it gets terrible reviews relating to covering and assembly, so this seems to be worth the extra $50.

Last question: I have 2 servos left over from RC days from 15 years ago. I hooked them up to my receiver and to the naked eye there is no difference between them and my Futaba 3004 servos, other than the model number (which I forget) and the little sticker that says that they are not direct drive. Would it be ok to use an old servo like this for THROTTLE only? I could put one in each plane as a throttle servo, and use all new servos for other 3 channels.

Thanks guys, great to be back! :D

RE: OK for second plane?
 

Good looking plane. To me, it looks very similar to the "Piper Cherokee". Having said that, I would keep the tricycle gear, as in the full scale "Cherokee". Just my 2c.

DaveB

RE: OK for second plane?
 

It does resemble the Piper Cherokee in tricycle configuration. Do you want something to have fun and putt around with, or are you looking for a model that will teach you as much as possible? If the latter I would suggest a low wing tail wheel (conventional gear) airplane. If a trainer were the sun, a low wing conventional gear model would be the moon. It will show you what it's like to fly the "other half" of available sport models. Variety in aircraft and precise flying standards are what make pilots improve. I can't personally vouch for the quality of that ARF and have never ordered from Pacific Aeromodel Inc.

RE: OK for second plane?
 

Which Piper Cherokee are you guys talking about (Hangar 9, or is there another one?)

If/when I get this plane (i.e. when I get economically stimulated, Mr. Bush) I plan on making it a tail dragger; it has wheel mounts built in for the conversion.

RE: OK for second plane?
 

I think they are reffering to the full scale airplane.
I think that will be a fine second plane.
Taildragger vs trike gear only makes a difference on takeoff and to a lesser extent landing, once in the air the landing gear configuration does not make much difference in the way a plane flies.

RE: OK for second plane?
 

This is the one I'm planning to get for my second plane. (After I solo on the first, that is.)

http://www.hangar-9.com/Products/Def...ProdID=HAN1675

I'm gonna upgrade radios before I do, though.

RE: OK for second plane?
 

Oh, thanks. I think the tail dragger looks better anyway, and I want some experience with it. This looks like a nice 'assembly' (Hi CGr:) ) to take my time with and set up nice while I train on my Nexstar. When it's ready I plan on changing electronics/engine over to this plane, and modifying the Nexstar into a tail dragger w/o dihedral while I fly this plane.

RE: OK for second plane?
 

Sounds like a fine plan to me.

RE: OK for second plane?
 

:D

RE: OK for second plane?
 

I like the Knockabout's color selection. In choosing it as a second plane: it's probably as good as any Four-Star or Tiger 2. With a low wing, semi-symmetrical airfoil, little or no dihedral, squarish fuselage, and standard control surfaces, and weight that's within reason, they will have similar flight characteristics and stall tendencies. In fact, the Knockabout would probably be a better choice than the Four-Star because of the tricycle gear.

NorfolkSouthern

RE: OK for second plane?
 

Going back to your question about the old servos. I used to have a philosophy--my cheapest, weakest, oldest servos got put on throttle. I never could figure out why my engines would die in the air when I pulled the throttle back to idle real quickly. It didn't happen all the time, but sometimes I was getting dead sticks when I shouldn't be (plenty of fuel, engine tuned, attitude upright, etc). Even when I would pull the throttle back to idel to just "sail" around for a while, it would idle and then die for no apparent reason, but not always. I also would notice myself constantly changing the throttle trim a click or two here and there. Sometimes up, sometimes down. I finally summised that the old or cheap servos weren't holding their position very well. When you throttle back to idle (say on the final leg of a landing), there is a fine line between the engine idling, and the carb barrel shutting completely, and the engine dying. So I started putting good servos (sometimes digital) on the throttle and I find the idle much more consistent and solid. Not to say that my engines never die in the air, because they do. But this has helped tramendously. Take it for what it's worth.

RE: OK for second plane?
 

2Slow: Thanks, sounds like the extra $9 per servo is worth not having dead sticks.

Norfolk: Music to my ears. As usual I was messing around on the computer, procrastinating with schoolwork (easy to do with this site!) and looking for a good first low-wing plane. When I saw the Pacific Aeromodels Knockabout I got pretty excited; it's more scale-looking than many of the other low-wing planes I've been looking at, comes in cool colors (I really like the trim scheme; looks pretty retro), has a nice cowl covering the engine. Looking further into it they have a great instruction manual (even in color!) and all the hardware looks top notch. I think it's going to be a joy to assemble, and will be great in the air.

I've been flying low-wing planes on the sim and the more I do the more I really don't like planes with lots of dihedral - you get less accurate rudder control, and I usually roll the plane back before any of the self righting kicks in. I think this will be great.

Come on, economic stimulus!!! Woo-hoo!

RE: OK for second plane?
 

The deal with any low-wing with standard control surfaces and airfoil, FatOrangeCat, is that you need to keep sufficient airspeed. Mine bit when I tried to see how much I could slow it down. I lost the bet with the cost of repair materials, the plane won.

On landing: If you are flying level and your mains gently touch the runway and the tail drops as you coast in (in the case of a taildragger), that's a good landing. If you touch down on the mains a little hard, it means your approach is a bit steep and you're too slow. If one wing tip touches the landing strip on an otherwise OK landing, it means you tip stalled when you flared it. Mine would do that on occasion. Refer to the paragraph above. Just be mindful of this stuff when you maiden yours.

Get lots and lots of practice doing takeoffs and landings, and remember that your sim helps with orientation but real-life situations at the field are far different, and considerably less predictable. Mother Nature rules the jungle out there!

NorfolkSouthern

RE: OK for second plane?
 

Well I've got A WHILE before I get to the low-wing; I won't even buy it 'till may. In the meantime I'll try to practice real time landings, not just floating down out of the sky (if I can!)

RE: OK for second plane?
 

Here's another reason I think the Knockabout may be a good choice:

The "pull out vertically" is a good thing here. What this means is that you'll have a better chance at avoiding a stall situation by adding some power. Landing shouldn't be too difficult once you've learned the technique with your trainer. The tricycle gear may help you concentrate more on learning how to fly a low-wing, without the added burdon of figuring out how to groundhandle a taildragger. When you get the chance to take it up, let us know how it turns out.

NorfolkSouthern

RE: OK for second plane?
 

Gordon Banks ( RC Report) did a review on this plane and said it was very good ( I can't find it or I would tell you what issue ), I have been thinking about this plane too..