not a must starting with a trainer?
 

The Tiger II Is a great plane as a low wing trainer. I know lots of people who learned on either that or the Tiger 60.

not a must starting with a trainer?
 

That easy sport 40 is perfect, much like my students plane, just a ugly cockpit!
its still a stable design.
i think most people are seeing low wing trainer and thinking all kinds of stupid things, like how fast this plane can go with the 36-40 and how fast it rolls. ummm throttle,, rates.. nice inventions.

i flew my students fathers ( also my student ) Hi-boy today, OMG what a POS, didnt react and i had it on high rates, god knows how he would fly this thing, it also needed full trim on ailerons, elevator and rudder to fly straight!
im on high rates remember, i checked it, nothing looks wrong, we're gonna give it a full propper check, i think it might have been the wing on slightly iffy, but couldnt tell that by eye!

so we used the Funfly, he flys it fine, even tho i left it on high rates, oops. its stall speed is damn slow and it flys so good, just has that no stablising thing, but no biggie, you can still leave it fly on its own for 20 seconds or so.

dont turn up to the field with a fast jet, or anything silly,and your instructor wont mind a bit.

not a must starting with a trainer?
 

I still say it all depends on the individual student and the instructor.


A guy I work with (I think he's 19) was flying nice level rectangles with my Magic 3D,
after only two rounds around the field where I sort of nudged him along.
Yes, we were at about 1/4 throttle, and yes, I set up the low rates for him.
Midway through the tank, he was confident enough to change to figure eights.
We had started off with me having him watch my sticks as I flew slow circuits,
and explaining how little you actually had to move the sticks to attain results,
along with the basics on how to keep level through a turn, and all that.
He's flown all the fighter games and sim games, but had never tried an RC,
or even an RC sim. He just picked up on it very quickly. Good enough
so that I was confident to lean back in a chair and just watch and coach until it died.
He's the sort of guy who would probably solo in only a couple weekend's work.
Very smooth on the sticks, in a very short time... AND... he follows directions perfectly.

I figure, if a person is level-headed, remains calm, and isn't one to go nutso
with the controls, when something starts to look "wrong", I could train them
on most any of the popular Sunday fliers out there today. Even without a B-box.
Then there are those who are just plain hard to train... even with a Kadet ;)

not a must starting with a trainer?
 

You definitely won't get bored with a trainer, and it's very likely to get you more flying hours in, because it'll stay the shape it should be for longer (that is, not ground shaped!)

Put it this way.. There are quite a few people in our club who normally fly jets and giant scale models, who also have a trainer to fly for fun!

If you choose right, you can progress to the first stages of aerobatics, while enjoying the air-time you will need to get proficient.

Get a trainer first and enjoy the feeling of going home after a great day of flying with the model still in one piece!

Good luck.

David C.

not a must starting with a trainer?
 

My trainer was a Eagle 2, my second plane was a Tiger 2. I soloed on the Eagle and flew it about a year before going to the Tiger. My opinion upon first flying the Tiger was that it was just as easy to fly as the Eagle. In fact, the Tiger is a little heavier and faster and I think is easier to fly in wind than the Eagle (or most other trainers). Trainers generally do not handle wind well.

I don't think you will have trouble learning on a Tiger 2. On the other hand, don't fall in love with your first airplane. Chances are if it even survives your learning experience it will be repaired many times and ugly.

not a must starting with a trainer?
 

i dont want to start a fight, but why does he have any less chance of bringing a easy sport 40 trainer home than a high wing type trainer?
the possibility of getting into trouble is there with both planes, in fact a high wing trainer will be blown off course on landing easier thanks to that high wing now pointing the wrong way and respond slower, therefore having a greater chance of the instructor unable to correct, on low rates theres no reason why a easy sport design should be any harder to fly than a trainer. personaly i find the trainers slow responce a drawback. but thats me.
just a point to consider and theres no rule in stone that you must start on a trainer.

that thing about making the sport plane ugly after a few rough landings.. ummmmm :rolleyes: i've seen pretty trainers turn bad, i've seen pretty sport planes turn bad too. the ground dosnt care.
apart from the UC which needs bending back every few hard landings ( soft wire ) and the tail wheel which came off i'd like you to find a single scratch on my students plane, its taken a few wing tip last min opps wrong way tumbles, and its not even broke the prop, weird too, coz the tail in standard form is in a vunurable place on the bottom of the fuz, others build them with it on top.

i think the best idea here so far was to goto the field and try a few types, see which feels ok to you regardless of design.

i agree tho, trainers can be fun

not a must starting with a trainer?
 

I'm not sure if you're responding to my post, PhillyBaby, but I agree with you completely.

not a must starting with a trainer?
 

nope, the one above, and the ugly sports vs uslgy trainer from more above that.
but i added about my students pristeen plane when i saw yours, not to argue, just its possible, i think we all agree that the propper pilots have far uglyier sport planes than most learners.

one thing i know for sure, now my student is solo, i still stand by him, and will till he does his A, and if he wants help for the B then i'll be there, or if hes having a off day.
first flight today i had him on the buddy just incase, and i was checking how he was feeling, a cool thumbs up was the answer. all good :)
despite this, he will now kill his plane as he puts more hours on it in one weekend than he has so far, and tries more and more and finds his limits. we all go through this.
the common mistakes then of learners still on trainers is to jump up a stage and then do it all over again thinking their good enough for the low wing SPORT AEROBATIC plane.

not a must starting with a trainer?
 

the cockpit on the easy sport is no problem, i just put a jack in the box antenna ball in it and you never se the cockpit again. here are a few things to consider. 1. yes, trainers do not tend to handle well in the wind, and they do have slow response time. but, they are easy to land, and good trainers can handle quite a beating. when you are new, you are ambitious. you thin you can do ore than you really can, you try, and you make a boo-boo. that is normal, i am sure we have all had that experiance.
2. midwing planes are less stable than the trainer, but will still fly "hands free". the thing is, the cg is lower, and so is the wing. think of it as a bowl, with a ball in the center of it, hanging from the ceiling. a high wing plane would be just hangin there. the ball would stay in the center, and it would always return to normal. the curve of the bowl is the dihedral. a midwing plane like the easy sport which has less dihedral, would be a slightly curved saucer just under the hook from which it hangs. if you leave it alone, the ball will never roll off, but when you mess with it, it may roll off, or the ball may stay on, depending on how much imput you give it. a low wing plane (like a cap with no dihedral) would be a flat piece of wood with a rod going through the center, with the ball balanced on top. you give it imput, the ball rolls off, so you have to keep on the sticks. for a beginner, the highest level of diffculty is one what may still return to normal, like the easy sport. i hope this answers your question in full.

not a must starting with a trainer?
 

I've read through a lot of threads on this same question, but have never seen anyone recomend a failsafe device, like the FMA Co-pilot. If things get out of hand, just center the sticks, co-pilot brings it back to straight and level. This hobby is supposed to be fun, and it doesn't hurt my pride any to say that when things get a little hairy I just center the stick. Helps with landing too. Center the stick, throttle back steer with the rudder. To much money invested to waste it on ego.

not a must starting with a trainer?
 

it teaches you to rely on something else, tut tut tut, your in control of the plane, not some little black box.
may help the hard of learning

not a must starting with a trainer?
 

I disagree, I'm in control of the plane until something goes wrong, I can try as hard as I want to correct the problem before turning to the co-pilot. I'm in the hobby to have fun flying, not let pride make me crash a $300+ airplane. Just my .02 cents.

not a must starting with a trainer?
 

i dont know about the co pilot, but you have to fight the HAL unit, you have to keep the stick over to maintain the bank, or dive/climb. thats a very bad way to learn, you can turn this down, but its still there.

not a must starting with a trainer?
 

I agree absolutely.

It's enough to have to learn how to fly, let alone learn how to handle something else that is trying to fight your commands at the same time. You have to learn to control the plane in the end, and it's not beyond even a learner, so it's a good idea to start to learn the right things at the outset.

All that's been said about mid wings being flyable etc is true, however, it seems a shame that all that technology and thought has gone into what we now call a trainer, for it to be discarded offhand.

I remember the times when there was no such thing as a trainer. You had to fly a high wing plane because that's all the technology could handle. It was the 'entry level' that every radio pilot had to learn as non-proportional systems could not handle the complexity of flight of a high performance aircraft.

They still managed to have aerobatic championships though!

Why fight the evolution. Why not use it?

-David C.

not a must starting with a trainer?
 

With the Co-pilot, you can use a 5th channel, and turn it on and off at will, or you can even use a proportional channel to adjust how sensitive it is. My point is that with some of the technology available today, there is no reason why someone can't learn on a low wing. For some people out there, it's hard to come up with the $$ to purchase a new plane when teir skills outgrow a trainer. So why not buy something that will keep you interested for a long time, but still be able to challenge your skills?

not a must starting with a trainer?
 

the Hal works the same way. does the co pilot make you keep the stick over?
butttttttttttttttttt
a instructor can flick his switch when he knows the learner cant save it, the learner is more likely to flick his switch much earlier ( or forget it all together ) also the Co pilot cant throttle up and save a stall.
if the learner is flicking his switch all the time he isnt learning not to get in trouble, and not how to get out of it, most instructors will wait for a while before taking it back.
i fully agree with not leaving a trail of planes ( $$$ ) in your wake as you move up through the stages. IF you prove good enough.

i still dont agree that hi-boy trainer lands easier than the fun-fly, yes it sat there nice and steady, but on landing the wind kept lifting the wing and the slow responce and throws made it very hard to track back on course, i came in with a lot of rudder to help, and i know how to use it, learners dont
most trainers also have a wing loading way too low, making them unstable in wind, and sail past you on landing despite the lowest of idles

not a must starting with a trainer?
 

I have a friend who just could not learn to fly his trainer. I put the buddy cord on my "Bingo" took him up three mistakes high and turned it over to him, he flew most of the tank out until I took over for the landing did not have to save him once.

He then told me that his trainer did not respond to small control inputs and when it did respond it was too much. I flew the trainer and sure enough it was much harder to fly than the Bingo.

I took his trainer home , cut the wing in half, decreased the dihedral and sealed the hinge line, he soloed the day after I returned his trainer. I think that a good low wing aircraft can be easier to fly than most trainers. The Sig 4*-x is very similar to the Bingo and I see no reason that it should not fly the same.

not a must starting with a trainer?
 

I have no doubt that's all true, but.....

.. for the sake of the bank balance of beginners reading this thread, and the more experienced pilots sharing the runway with the beginners, a 'trainer' is still something to train on, and a more advanced aircraft is for, umm, more advanced pilots.

David C.

not a must starting with a trainer?
 

but the problem is, if you learn to use the copilot, when it is not available you will not know what to do. to be honest, if you get a trainer, the copilot is not necessary. you see, in order for the copilot to work, the sticks have to be centered. that means, let's say, you are landing, but in a nose down attitude. you want it to stay that way, so you center the sticks. if you have a copilot, it will return it to level flight. no good. just learn with the trainer. it seems intimidating, but if you get a good instructor, it is not a problem at all.

not a must starting with a trainer?
 

agreed i dont like the co pilot its to expensive for what it does anyway i could of learnd and a 4*.....jsut have a good instuctor and try to prctice on g2 if you do go that way.

Trainers and trainors
 

This subject just never seems to die, some beginner thinks he is above starting with a trainer aircraft, Then doesn't realize that he is taking time from his instructor and in many cases those others using the airfield. A good trainer and instructor can speed up the process, period. Pick a more advanced aircraft that doesn't work and you will be starting all over with one that will work, the high/flat bottomed wing trainer. Some get away with the shortcuts and others do not.(most)

not a must starting with a trainer?
 

philly and spaceclam ,
based on what you and all others wrote(thank you all) I finally ordered an easy sport( would have ordered tiger 2 but all goldberg planes are out of stock). I now need to get an engine and servos and radio. I think OS FX 46 would be good enough for it huh? thank you again for the nice discussion and suggestions.

not a must starting with a trainer?
 

lots of power... use it wisely. a largeish prop of say 11x4 maybe as much as a 12x4 on a 46?? should keep the speeds down and give pleany of thrust if the instructor needs to take it back. fly it on low rates, and if you've got a sim, start flying. the FMS one is a free download and is as stable as a elephant on a pin, good start hey ;) theres a link to the FSM site on our club site. www.rcflyers.net

not a must starting with a trainer?
 

i have a 50 sx ringed on that thing, it works great./ it has enough power to hover it when you are ready. a 46 fx can't do that. the 50 sx is more expensive but it is the same engine block, and it is well worth the extra money.

not a must starting with a trainer?
 

thats taking it a bit toooooo far, you want the smaller engine so you last longer on one tank and hes gonna be learning, having a 50 up front wont help, and hes not gonna learn to prophang on it.