Beyond trainers: a universe of diverse models-Which is which?
 

Beyond trainers: a universe of diverse models-Which is which?

I understand that the lines that divide beginners, intermediate and expert RC pilots are very vague and subjective, as it has been discussed in these forums many times.
Proficiency depends on human skills, practice, experience, etc.
It also depends on how others evaluate those skills.

It is clear to me how unclear these categories can be.
What I cannot understand is what makes the difference among the universe of diverse RC models that one can buy or build and fly beyond that first trainer, once it has been mastered.

In many RCU posts you read things like: ”you are not ready for that model”, “it is a high performance ARF”, “more advanced planes stall easily”, “it is not as forgiving as a trainer”, “those servos are not precise and fast enough for that task”, etc.

To make things more confusing, beyond the always recommended first low wing RC model, like Sig 4 Star or Goldberg Tiger, the breed of models branches out to the many motorized RC specialties: sport, fun-fly, IMAC, F3A, classic pattern, pylon, extreme speed, combat, warbirds, scale, 1/2A, 3-D, 4-D, multi-engine, etc.

Could any experienced poster explain the main differences, limitations and required piloting skills among those many models to those of us who have not flown such models yet?

This information could help us making better decisions when selecting our next ARF’s or kits, instead of investing and ending up with a model that we may want but is beyond our actual capabilities.

Thanks in advance.

RE: Beyond trainers: a universe of diverse models-Which is which?
 

A guy could write a book on the topic you've brought up. Actually, to do it right, many books. But I'll attempt to give you enough information to make sense out of the vast array of planes. I like to think of them in classes or performance levels.

1. Trainers
Lots of self-righting characteristics designed into the aerodynamics of the airframe, small control surfaces to make them less sensitive, and little to no consideration given to aerobatic performance. Every compromise in performance (speed, maneuverability, and neutrality) has been made to improve straight and level flight and to create a model that's forgiving of bad piloting.

2. Aerobatics trainers/ 2nd airplanes/ Sport planes
Most or all self-righting characteristics removed from trainers to improve overall performance, and generally bigger control surfaces for more maneuverability. They still are designed to be stable in straight and level flight, and stall resistant airfoil and wing shapes are still used to still be forgiving of bad piloting. These planes are the ones you see everywhere- the Ugly Sticks, 4 Stars, etc. If you can fly a trainer around the circuit and land without having to make big corrections, you can fly one of these planes. Most pilots comment that these actually are easier to control than their trainers were due to the better overall aerodynamics that are possible without all the self-righting characteristics.

3. Fully Aerobatic planes
Very little consideration is given to making these planes forgiving of bad piloting and there are no self-righting or stability characteristics designed into the aerodynamics. Pilots say they fly like they are on rails, because when set up right they do exactly what the pilot tells them to do and nothing else. That can get a new pilot in trouble, because there is no roll or pitch coupling to prevent stalls. Airfoils and wing shapes are designed to stall on demand for certain maneuvers. But poor piloting can bring about stalls unexpectedly, which can cause a crash quickly. These planes are for pilots who can already fly aerobatic routines on a sport plane and want to improve their performance. Examples include all competitive aerobatics planes- IMAC, F3A, SPA, etc. The specific competitive division's rules dictate which designs are legal. For example, IMAC requires scale models be used, whereas F3A allows nearly any design so their planes don't have full sized equivalents. Specific examples would include the Yak 54, Edge and Extra series, and the Kaos.

4. 3D and Fun Fly planes
These are similar to aerobatics planes, but have bigger control surfaces, more stall-resistant airfoils, and higher power to weight ratios. They are purpose built for doing stunts at low speeds, many of them done using only prop wash for lift. These overlap with sport planes and aerobatics planes in use, because some are very easy to fly with lower control throws. The H9 Pulse is a good example of an overlapping design.

5. Racers
Every design compromise has been made to improve high speed performance. They have thin airfoils, small fuselages and tails, and small control surfaces compared to sport models. Most can't do aerobatics and the thin wings are prone to stalling at lower speeds. You have to have good orientation skills and quick reflexes to fly these, and you have to be good at landings to keep from stalling them.

6. Scale models
These can fit into any of the above categories, just as their full size equivalents do. As the name implies, scale models are copies of real airplanes. Because the air works on a model differently than on a full size plane, scale models don't generally perform as well as a similar plane that was originally designed as a model. That's why many popular scale models come with the warning that they are not for beginners, especially WW1 and WW2 fighters.

Does that get you started?

RE: Beyond trainers: a universe of diverse models-Which is which?
 

Good questions.

The performance of an airplane depends upon a large number of factors that newer RC pilots will not be aware of.

Let's start with the wing as this is the heart of any airplane. A constant chord wing gives the new pilot the best chance of returning home with his airplane. This is due to it's stall characteristics which are the most gentle and predictable when slowed down or loaded in turns.
More advanced acrobatic airplanes will have tapered wings that allow them to stall easier (which is what a snap roll or spin needs) and can cause problems for low time pilots on landing approaches during turns onto final when the airplane is close to stall. Stay away from tapered wings until you have two or three constant chord airplanes and a few hundred flights under your belt.

The next factor is wing loading, which is the number of ounces the wing is carrying per square foot of wing area. In 40 sized airplanes, loadings from 16 to 22 oz/sq ft is good. Higher loadings require more speed for take-off and landings, and will stall quicker in turns.

Now just because you have a easy constant chord wing with a light wing loading airplane, it doesn't mean that it will just fly around easy circles. The next factor is the CG balance. Trainers are set up with a forward balance to enhance stability and recovery. It also makes the airplane more speed sensitive - you know how trainers climb with power, but fly level at half throttle? This is due to being nose heavy. But once you can fly, it becomes annoying. Then it is time to start moving the balance point back. This makes the elevator more sensitive and it also allows you to fly slower which also makes the rudder more powerful. This allows a tame constant chord wing design to become almost as maneuverable as a tapered wing, with less opportunity to bite you in the backside.

No matter where you go in RC, you need to build up to the type of airplane. Giant scale models operate differently than 40 sized models, and break easier in bad landings or excessive air loads. Heavy scale models with high wing loadings need more awareness of airspeed on takeoff and landings. The point is, that you need to work you way up to the type of airplane you want to fly.

RE: Beyond trainers: a universe of diverse models-Which is which?
 

Excellent summaries, Paul and HP.

Thanks!

RE: Beyond trainers: a universe of diverse models-Which is which?
 

<div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: Arial; font-size: 12px; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; "><div>I'm going to take this in a different direction here. This is not to take anything away from the fine answers above, but simply because I thought of this in different terms when reading the OP.

</div></div>

Well...he's not a poster here, but someone can and has...roughly 70 years ago. :)

Stick and Rudder: An Explanation of the Art of Flyingby WolfgangLangewiesche

================

Here's my take on the whole thing, and why I suggest that book. This advice is, of course, worth precisely what you're paying for it. *lol*

The guidelines and input above are certainly appropriate, and useful information. And they probably more directly answer the question the OP asked. I worry, however, about such "lists" for one very simple reason...

While "Warbirds are X" and "Aerobats do Y" is generally true...the moment you presume it's ALWAYS true, you will find an aerobat that couldn't do Y if its life depended on it...and you will discover this PRECISELY when its life DOES depend on it. The same will be true of the first warbird you buy, just KNOWING it must be X...right up until it NOT being X puts it in the ground.

They are what they are...guidelines. And worthwhile ones, to be sure.

However, there ARE some hard and fast truths that hold for any airplane...warbird, scale, aerobat, funfly, pattern, you name it.

For example:

Contrary to popular belief, an airplane doesn't have a "stall speed". It may have speeds at which it will stall in a certain configuration, but attitude, weight, and CG can ALL change that speed.

What an airplane DOES have is a given Angle of Attack at which it will stall. Whether you've added weight, loaded the airplane up in a turn, slowed down doesn't matter...exceed that AoA, and the airplane WILL stall...REGARDLESS of its airspeed.

Are there aspects to an airplane that will suggest to you what that AoA might be, how easily the plane might be pushed to that limit, or what sorts of activities might result in exceeding it? Absolutely. And they will hold true for EVERY airplane, in EVERY case.

What understanding them will allow you to do is look at any airplane, watch it fly in another modelers hands, see how it performs, and say "Hrmm...that airplane seems prone to stalling in X situation because of Y trait...and I am/am not prepared to avoid X situation, so I should/should not avoid Y trait in airplanes".

Will it be true that MOST, say, warbirds might have this trait? Sure. However, general "Warbirds do X" thinking will lead people to tell you, and you to believe, that warbirds aren't suitable for you.

Maybe you really WANT a warbird though! Knowing the specific TRAIT that you seek to avoid lets you look for a warbird that doesn't have it! These are MODELS...maybe someone has made a warbird completely absent our evil trait! You won't know until you look, and you won't know TO look until you understand WHY you're looking to begin with.

The book I recommended above will teach you these things. It will, imo, TRULY answer your question...it will help you identify themain differences, limitations and required piloting skills among ANY model.

<br type="_moz" />

RE: Beyond trainers: a universe of diverse models-Which is which?
 

gboulton is exactly right. Actually learning about aerodynamics will allow you to evaluate planes yourself and get the flight characteristics you want. Another thing not yet mentioned is the role that setup plays. CG location, throws, flight trimming, and engine selection can change the way a plane flies dramatically. That's part of the design of typical "sport" models. Broad options in CG, engine, and throws let you have a model you can grow up with. Even aerobatic planes can change in their flight characteristics with flight trimming. For example, an IMAC flyer might set up an Edge 540 to be very neutral handling with only enough control throw to do the required maneuvers at the very corners of the stick positions, wheras a 3D flyer would go more tail heavy with bigger throws on the same plane to improve harriers and hovering.

RE: Beyond trainers: a universe of diverse models-Which is which?
 

We all start school the same way. First we learn to read and write, add and subtract, etc. In other words, we learn the basics.

Then we move on to High School where we learn more advanced knowledge. At this point, we begin to understand ourselves a bit more and we start to discover where our potential lies.

Then we all go off in different directions: College, the military, the work force, etc. and we specialize in specific fields; Doctor, Lawyer, Architect, or (in the case of SPAD fliers) Garbage Collectors

(Sorry, I couldn't help but make a joke there :D)

It's the same thing with flying. Once you've learned the basics, find the style you like best. Of course, someone who sucks at biology won't become a good doctor no matter how badly he may want to be one. By the same token, you may not be capable of DOING the type of flying that you aspire to.

But then, if we were all good at everything, we'd all be Tiger Woods, Picasso, or Ron Jeremy

RE: Beyond trainers: a universe of diverse models-Which is which?
 

You have an interesting group of heroes there, Minnflyer.

RE: Beyond trainers: a universe of diverse models-Which is which?
 

Not mine, I was playing to a diverse crowd :D

RE: Beyond trainers: a universe of diverse models-Which is which?
 

"True courage is not the brutal force of vulgar heroes, but the firm resolve of virtue and reason." - Whitheead;)

RE: Beyond trainers: a universe of diverse models-Which is which?
 

For pilots who are following this thread, that book can be read in-line at:

http://books.google.com/books?id=zla...page&q&f=false

Great reference, gboulton; thanks.

RE: Beyond trainers: a universe of diverse models-Which is which?
 

Not really...Picasso had a reputation as something of a ladies' man....

That's not the complete book, justexcerpts, I'm afraid.
</span><br type="_moz" />

RE: Beyond trainers: a universe of diverse models-Which is which?
 

I love where this thread went. I have seen too many so called experts telling new pilots to change the CG or incidence or control throws, without ever seeing the plane fly or at the very least explaning how to tell if that is the problem and recommending they get with an experienced pilot to help. They obviously don't understand the basics when they start throwing out solutions with no reasoning.

RE: Beyond trainers: a universe of diverse models-Which is which?
 

There are lots of questions that come up on this forum that I have to wonder how those who answer think they know anything about the poster's current setup. I like the aerodynamics forum here for a start at understanding how flight works and how various design features will change the way an airplane performs. There's a lot of useless threads too, but the real info is worth wading through them for.

RE: Beyond trainers: a universe of diverse models-Which is which?
 

I appreciate each one of the previous posts.[sm=thumbs_up.gif]

We have deviated a little to discuss pilots' skills and advisers' wisdom and curriculum; however, those are the thinking softwares behing the radio sticks, and I would like to return the thread's focus to the hardware on the other end: the model airplane.

For example, reading about propellers tonight, I have found this statement that again, mentions what for any beginner sounds like vague and unclear concepts (highlighted in red):

"Trainers and many lower-performance sport models are unable to take full advantage of the performance increase that CF propellers provide .......Hollow CF propellers are light, allowing for the fastest engine acceleration possible. They feature excellent performance across the entire aerobatic spectrum."

Other examples:

"IMAC and Pattern are two different but similar AMA events, both aerobatic. IMAC is flown with scale aerobats and Pattern is flown with unlimited design requirements except for max weight (5 kilos) and size (must fit inside a two meter box). F3A is a type of schedule flown in Pattern, more specifically the top International schedule flown at World competitions."

"I build and fly the old school pattern planes because they make great sport planes too. Today's pattern planes are much more advanced but you can fly the basics with planes like the Kaos."

I would like to see this thread developing in a direction where concepts like those (types, specifics, limits of different models) are explained to beginners by experienced RC pilots.

RE: Beyond trainers: a universe of diverse models-Which is which?
 

Nice redirect. It would be good to ask a more specific question. What kind of planes are you currently interested in discussing the flight characteristics of?

RE: Beyond trainers: a universe of diverse models-Which is which?
 

No particular kind of planes.
The first posts have very well explained the main reasons that make the differences among models beyond the trainer type (high and low wing).

I had the dumb idea that a thread like this would help any graduated beginner pilot to learn general information about many different types of aerial RC models and disciplines.
That would serve two purposes:
1) General RC culture.
2) Guidance for selecting a specific branch in which developing skills (sort of career guidance at high school).

I have been around this forum for a while, and I believe that type of information for the what-is-next-pilot is not sufficient.

I now understand that discussing the flight characteristics of so broad array of existing RC models reaches beyond the scope of the Beginners forum, attracts no much attention (according to participation so far), and is hard to try even for the more experienced posters.[&o]

I believed that many inexperienced RC pilots were bothered for words spoken around them that didn’t really describe the particulars of a specific model.
In my case, those words related to RC models were: “performance” and “advanced”.

I really appreciate your posts in this thread, Jester; they have been awesome.[sm=thumbs_up.gif]

RE: Beyond trainers: a universe of diverse models-Which is which?
 

To be blunt, there's probably a REASON "this kind of thread" doesn't exist.

It can't.

You simply can NOT say "Warbirds do this, and require skill A, B, and C" with any level of accuracy. You may make some vague generalization about what MOST warbirds do, or what skills MOST pilots use to handle the things MOST warbirds do...but you simply can not lump a group of planes together with any level of consistency.

The moment you do, you're asking for trouble...because you're inviting that 'ready for the next step" pilot to go out and presume an airplane does _____________ and does not do _________ without any sort of research beyond "It's an aerobat, and that thread on RCU said..."

Even more frustratingly, the SAME airplane can be completely different depending simply on setup. One builder/assembler may hand you a sport plane that flies as docile as any trainer, while another might hand you the same airplane with a 720 degree per second roll rate and the CG an inch aft of "recommend" location. You're going to have two completely different experiences flying them, and NEITHER experience will, in any way, define what 'sport airplanes" are or do.

The whole point of most of the posts in this thread is precisely this:

The answer to "what is next" is to learn WHY "most sport airplanes do ____" and why some don't.

It really doesn't matter how many times or ways you ask for a list of "general information about many different types of RC models"...there ain't no such critter. For every single claim you, or anyone, can make about any "type of RC models", I can point out, show you, purchase, or setup an airplane of that "type" that is exactly the opposite of what you claim.

<br type="_moz" />

RE: Beyond trainers: a universe of diverse models-Which is which?
 

Another point to consider is the pilot. Two pilots ready to move on to the next step may require two completely different models. Reaction time, grasp of fundimentals, aggressiveness, and current ability to name a few, will dictate what would be a good next plane. The best way to make a decision is with the help of your peers, the ones whom you fly with regularly. As far as the difference in performance between low and high performance sport models, it is generally the the amount of R&D done to find the right balance of airfoil/airfoils, tail moment, thrust line, wing loading, etc. The best thing anyone could do is discuss what types of attributes they are looking for in a next model with an experienced modeler with whom they fly, list those attributes and request experienced pilots to respond with possible matches from thier experiences. This may give you a somewhat smaller list to pick from. In the end it is still somewhat of a guessing game.

RE: Beyond trainers: a universe of diverse models-Which is which?
 

I'm glad I and the others could help. It sounds like your real question is how to go about choosing your next model. That, as eloquently stated above, simply can't be answered in a thread like this. What we are able to do is direct you to consider the kind of flying you want to do next, and what you want your next airplane to do that your current one does not. The activity specific forums will go deeper into various designs' suitability for the task at hand, but for the beginning pilot's second airplane the classic "sport" models can't be beat. They are faster and more maneuverable to develop your control yet still forgiving. The other big benefit to them is that you will always have your days when you don't want to be challenged so you pull out that raggedy 4 Star or Ugly Stick and go at it.