|
RE: Overpowering a Trainer
ORIGINAL: Huntster Post pix..... this is what modeling is all about.... Trying new things if you want to... and having fun doing the same ol' same ol' if THAT's what you choose! We'd all like to see!!!! Hunster sounds like he is a veteran at this hobby. Indeed this is about MODELING not just grabbing a plane and flying it to the rules the original designer made. Keep on experimenting. The best time is when it doesn't work out. Then you'll have some problems to solve, but when you do, it will be days before you can stop smiling over it! :D DM |
RE: Overpowering a Trainer
I think you need a garbage can to carry the plane in after the first landing. I hope you still have a motor and radio after the experience. you will need another plane for sure.
|
RE: Overpowering a Trainer
ORIGINAL: smedsky I think you need a garbage can to carry the plane in after the first landing. I hope you still have a motor and radio after the experience. you will need another plane for sure. |
RE: Overpowering a Trainer
ORIGINAL: smedsky I think you need a garbage can to carry the plane in after the first landing. I hope you still have a motor and radio after the experience. you will need another plane for sure. I have given the plane a pretty good post flight inspection, and there are no signs that the airframe was overstressed in any way. I think I will have to be careful doing high G manuvers but it does not seem to be a problem yet. I am going to do a few more mods to the aircraft, I am going to extend the rudder at least 2 inches and I will also extend the elevator, about another inch or so. Once that is done it will be back to test flying the plane. What I can tell you so far is the plane is a bit faster than before, but not really that much, however the vertical is now really unlimited I now have enough power to pull out of trouble, had to use that once already. |
RE: Overpowering a Trainer
ORIGINAL: carlosponti ORIGINAL: smedsky I think you need a garbage can to carry the plane in after the first landing. I hope you still have a motor and radio after the experience. you will need another plane for sure. |
RE: Overpowering a Trainer
definately wrong since i just saw two planes that blew my mind recently, 1 a twist 40 with a 18cc GAS engine on it, 2 a UCD 40 with a Saito 125.
|
RE: Overpowering a Trainer
Manks asked: "Just wondering, why do you feel the PT 40 is a questionable design? I have two of them, the first (which I have now bashed) had the training wing - way to much dihedral, but other than that it was fine, I built the second with less dihedral and I really enjoy flying it. No problems at all with it. I bashed the second one because I wanted to do a bit more stuff and trainers are not great for testing your skills!"
First a disclaimer. I built my PT-40 in 1990 when it was a relatively new design and Great Planes may have updated it between then and your version. I chose the kit over a Great Planes Trainer 40 (Homer says: "Doh!") because the Great Planes advert claimed it was the "Perfect Trainer" developed through years of blah blah... There was no leading edge sheeting, only a few sticks to define the curve of the airfoil. There was no wing center sheeting and no fiberglass reinforcement either. The control surfaces were too small to give the plane any authority as one's training advanced into aerobatics. The worst problem was the stock wing incidence which caused the plane to climb like a monkey whenever throttle was increased forcing the student to constantly jack with re-trimming the plane - not something a new pilot should be having to worry about! When landing, the extreme dihedral would cause the plane to roll violently in even slight crosswind gusts. The plane succumbed to the trash barrel one day when I flew it through a barbed wire fence while floating in on final at a field I was unfamiliar with. The wing was a cloud of confetti. Man, I hated that plane. It was a Perfect T_rd! By definition a trainer should be easy to build, easy to fly and fairly robust in the event of a crash. It should also have enough design range IMHO that a few minor changes to throws and CG make the plane significantly more responsive allowing the plane to remain "fun" long past the student's initial solo flight. The Trainer 20/40/60 design was originally developed by Joe Bridi and incorporated outstanding examples of all the features I outlined above. It, in my opinion, really deserves the title of the Perfect Trainer. This is even more the case today with PC based flight simulators which allow a student to solo in a couple of weekends! I suspect Great Planes was trying to replace Bridi's design with the PT because it was simpler and therefore cheaper to produce etc. I'm not sure how many airplanes you've built or flown but suggest you begin casting your net more broadly. Take a look at some of the classic pattern/sport planes like the Kaos or UltraSport 60. These planes are docile yet go exactly where you point them and can do virtually every maneuver within reason. They will slow to a crawl when landing without tip stalling and would be a great second or third plane. I don't have any experience with the 4*60 but there are many people on this forum who do. Crate |
RE: Overpowering a Trainer
ORIGINAL: CrateCruncher Manks asked: "Just wondering, why do you feel the PT 40 is a questionable design? I have two of them, the first (which I have now bashed) had the training wing - way to much dihedral, but other than that it was fine, I built the second with less dihedral and I really enjoy flying it. No problems at all with it. I bashed the second one because I wanted to do a bit more stuff and trainers are not great for testing your skills!" First a disclaimer. I built my PT-40 in 1990 when it was a relatively new design and Great Planes may have updated it between then and your version. I chose the kit over a Great Planes Trainer 40 (Homer says: "Doh!") because the Great Planes advert claimed it was the "Perfect Trainer" developed through years of blah blah... There was no leading edge sheeting, only a few sticks to define the curve of the airfoil. There was no wing center sheeting and no fiberglass reinforcement either. The control surfaces were too small to give the plane any authority as one's training advanced into aerobatics. The worst problem was the stock wing incidence which caused the plane to climb like a monkey whenever throttle was increased forcing the student to constantly jack with re-trimming the plane - not something a new pilot should be having to worry about! When landing, the extreme dihedral would cause the plane to roll violently in even slight crosswind gusts. The plane succumbed to the trash barrel one day when I flew it through a barbed wire fence while floating in on final at a field I was unfamiliar with. The wing was a cloud of confetti. Man, I hated that plane. It was a Perfect T_rd! By definition a trainer should be easy to build, easy to fly and fairly robust in the event of a crash. It should also have enough design range IMHO that a few minor changes to throws and CG make the plane significantly more responsive allowing the plane to remain "fun" long past the student's initial solo flight. The Trainer 20/40/60 design was originally developed by Joe Bridi and incorporated outstanding examples of all the features I outlined above. It, in my opinion, really deserves the title of the Perfect Trainer. This is even more the case today with PC based flight simulators which allow a student to solo in a couple of weekends! I suspect Great Planes was trying to replace Bridi's design with the PT because it was simpler and therefore cheaper to produce etc. I'm not sure how many airplanes you've built or flown but suggest you begin casting your net more broadly. Take a look at some of the classic pattern/sport planes like the Kaos or UltraSport 60. These planes are docile yet go exactly where you point them and can do virtually every maneuver within reason. They will slow to a crawl when landing without tip stalling and would be a great second or third plane. I don't have any experience with the 4*60 but there are many people on this forum who do. Crate Thanks for your comments, I can tell you that my PT-40s have sheeting on the wings, with fiberglass ect. I have not had a problem with the plane climbing when I add throttle ect, for me it has been a good trainer. That said, I am now moving on to bigger and better planes - I will keep the bashed PT -40 for fun, but will be pulling stuff out of the other plane shortly to go into a 40 size Corsair, I also have a 1/4 scale Chipmunk that is pretty much ready to go, I will wait for the 4* 60 before I move on to that big bird! I am fairly limited in the actual planes I have flown, but having fun with what I have right now. Cheers! manks |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:52 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.