Since i have moved onto a UCD .46 with a Satio .82 from an Alfa trainer, i've been thinking the trainer was a waste of time and money. With a good instructor(which i had) and a flight sim, i could have easily flown the UCD with the rates on low. Maybe the learning curve would have been a little longer but at least i would have something to grow into and not out of like the trainer. It seems like a lot of the 3d planes are made to fly slow enough that a beginner can learn on them and maybe the degree of difficulty is a little higher but a good instructor should smooth that out.

Maybe i'm biased because all i'm interested in is 3D and biplanes but i think i could have done fine starting out with a 3D plane. The only thing the trainer really did for me was to convince me that i really wanted to get more involved in this hobby. Other than that i think my trainer is gonna take a back seat unless i modify it to make it more interesting to fly.

I think for the wanna be 3D flyer like me a trainer really isn't necessary if you have the right tools ie; instructor, flight sim, good advice on parts and misc. things and lots of reading in RCU.

Knowing what i know now i would have bought the UCD as a trainer.

What do you guys think?

Sometimes it's hard to remember just how hard it was when we first started. Remember that first takeoff, landing, dead stick, so on? As these things become more and more natural, we tend to forget where we've come from....

I "almost" have the same thoughts about the Tiger 60 I put together. Other than the prop selection, the thing flies much more like I expected than the trainer did. Push the throttle, and it really moves out (got the Super Tigre 75 up front), but still quite controllable, and banks / turns are quick, and still predictable. This seems like more what I was looking to fly, maybe that would be a better explaination. I still had a good time with the Alpha, maybe I learned more from it than I give it credit for. I did really start thrashing it around toward the end, to the point where I felt the wings were in danger of collapsing in mid turn, or the end of the dive. I started flying it hard just to see what it would do. Full speed flyby's 4' off the ground to where you have to jam the elevator to full up to get it to clear the hedgerow at the end of the runway....That kind of thing... Was fun..

Before you run, you need to learn to walk. A person needs to be taught the basic of flight before moving on to more advanced stuff. There is more to flying than 3D. I don't care if you can perform every 3D maneuver ever invented, if you can't demonstrate the basic skills of flying, you're not really flying. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that you can't perform basic maneuvers, I simply saying that 99% of people out there need the trainer type of plane to master those basics. I for one, have been flying for 17 years and I still love to take out the trainer and shoot touch and go's all day. My favorite part of flying is landing. To me, landing is an art. It is more than just flying the plane down to the ground. What ever makes you happy!

The BEST tool for the job is a trainer.

I still use my trainer for introducing others to r/c flight. Its nice to let someone take the buddy box and give it a try. I also flew mine with skis last winter and I want to try some floats.

I agree with RVater. It's good to have a trainer in the hangar for friends and family who want to give it a try on the buddy box. I went from a trainer to a Sig Kadet Sr. (which is also a trainer in larger proportion). I've had a blast with it. I'm getting ready to fly a stick, but I'll alway fly my Kadet because it's nice, slow and relaxing!

tukkus said:
Ah, and therein lies the rub. If you had an instructor willing to train you on a UCD... and if he didn't mind staying tensed on the button, prepared to take control in an instant... and if you didn't wear him to a frazz snapping out of simple maneuvers... for an extra several sessions...

Hey, wait a minute! I'm the instructor, and I don't know if you will catch on in 2 flights or in 22. And I do feel my time is valuable. And I know the trainer works for just about everyone, but I don't know about you, specifically. Some students never catch on, and some solo in a few sessions. So, the best use of my time in the training process is with a trainer.

In one of my clubs, a guy was going to use a Morris the Knife for his trainer. After about a dozen sessions, he went out and bought a LT40. The instructor (not me) spent a lot of time on that effort, for nothing. I won't do that.

So, sure. Some guys can probably learn on a Sig SE, or a UCD, or a Tiger. I think it could easily be an abuse of the willing instructor.

We need an instructor forum.

Good luck,
Dave Olson

You are right Scar alot of it depends on the instructor. In my case i had an instructor that doesnt come to the field with a plane cause there is always someone asking him to show them how to do a new stunt. So he says why bother bringing a plane when i can fly everyone elses. So in my case it would have worked out but i understand not everyone has that kind of opportunity to take advantage of. Most of the instructors at my field are retired so they have plenty of time on their hands to help out which is why i feel i could have jumped into a UCD and i'm sure there are other people that have or are in similar situations.

a trainer is good for training

Few truly accomplished and well rounded pilots would be without one or two.

They are:

Ideal cross country airplanes

Ideal night flyers

Ideal float planes

Perfect for bashing to twins

Perfect for bashing to triples

Perfect for bashing to Quads (look at the 'trainer in my Avitar)

Perfect for fooling your Buds (I have one that drops it horizontal stab in flight and continues on as an aerobatic flying wing)

Now if you want to have an absolute blast get a bunch of buds to bring their trainers and set two cones a hundred feet apart on the runway line'em all up and drop the flag. First one to complete 10 laps wins - No Wings Allowed!

No to be without a trainer is the mark of a newby. There is life out there beyond 3D you would be amazed.

John[8D]

Excellent post, Dave. Having an instructor around for double the flights that you might have needed because you're "too good to use a trainer" is pretty selfish, in my opinion. If instructors weren't kind enough to train new pilots for free, people might feel differently about using a plane that's not meant for the job.

I aggree with John,,
You can do loads of fun things with a trainer. I used mine to drop parachutes and bombs on a target.
Tom.

I think a trainer is great to have around on those weekends where you just want to go out and do some nice slow flying.

And now that I have grandkids getting old enough to start learning, I wouldn't want to teach them with anything else than a trainer.

Some people are just natural born flyers. The other 99% of us have to learn how to fly. See the thread http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/feel...2224281/tm.htm for the other side of the coin.

I've never seen anything fly worse than a trainer. This whole idea that they will self right themself is bunk. Sure they'll self right themself if you're 1000 high and have 60 seconds to spare. I don't know about a UCD but a low or mid wing sport plane makes a better trainer. Unlinke a traditional trainer when you input commands they actually happen and when you take them out the plane stops rolling or pitching. I taight my 10 year old to fly with a Tower Fun-51 in just a few days.

Tradition is the main reason trainers are trainers.

While there is some truth in that, it needs some elaboration. Trainers are not only easy to fly (Ok, *easy* is a relative thing), they are also easy to build. They are structurally more forgiving than other planes, and they are more forgiving of construction defects (i.e. you can build a crooked trainer and still have a suitable learning tool).

In other words, although a trainer may be ugly, and most second planes fly nothing like the trainer people upgraded from, the truth is that a trainer can be built by a novice using crude and cheap tools, has a better chance of surviving a maiden flight unscathed, and any crashes the plane has will typically produce less damage, and be easier to fix. That is the idea, anyways. So, in this age of ARF's and instant gratification, trainers are less and less appropriate for people to learn on. But, they still are the most rugged, stable, and forgiving planes in the air, in the hangar, on the building board, and in the event of impacts.

Someone (with money) who wants to fly planes like they play video games (i.e. if you die just press reset), then a trainer would be inappropriate. For the rest of us, trainers have a lot of traits that make it a better learning tool than just it's poor aerobatic abilities.

gus

Sounds like a blast

Can you say "Fun Fly event"

Try putting an LT-40 into a knife edge and it will show you just how fast it wants to self correct.

Now I know it's not meant for that but the LT-40 does most aerobatic maneuvers and once you can do them on a trainer then doing them on a sport plane will be much eaiser.

I do agree with the construction and good survival aspects of trainers. Here's my comparison of main flight traits.

Input responce to roll:
Trainer: Might roll a little, might roll a lot, might roll now, might roll later, stop rolling when it feels like it, response very speed dependant.
Sport plane: Roll rate is predictable, stops rolling when control is released.

Pitching vs. Speed:
Trainer: Go fast = pitch up. Go slow = picth down.
Sport plain: For the most part doesn't matter.

Landing:
Trainer: All over the place.
Sport plane: Pretty much flys straight.

The downside of a sport plane is they usually need to fly a little faster as well as land faster. Personally I'll take the predicable responce and stable flight characteristicts over slow speed and self correcting any time.

I have one question, how much more did you spend on your UCD .46 with a Satio .82 in it? I would be willing to bet over $250 (the cost of my first plane, with the TX, RX, and engine), hell, that is how much the engine costs. Would you be willing to spend that much on your first plane, when you also need to buy all the other stuff to go with it when you arent even sure you will stay in the hobby? Plus, when building a trainer, it doesnt have to be built perfectly, and it can take more abuse. I know that if I were to crash another on of my planes the same way I have crashed my trainer, that it would have been totaled. That and the fact that trainers are forgiving, makes them perfect for learning on.

This is only my personal opionion, but if I had tried to solo with my 3D plane I would have needed to repair it every weekend, and then it would have been as heavy as my trainer, even though it only took a month of weekends to solo Our runway is 40 feet wide but it sure looked small the first few times I tried landing on that piece of asphalt!

In anycase, though I only really needed the trainer for a month, I still have it for the following reasons,

-to go float flying
-the times I just want a relaxing afternoon
-introductory flights
-practice weird stuff like side-slipping the wrong way, inverted flat turns etc.
-fun-fly's
-when flying at an unfamiliar field
-extreme wind conditions, harrier landings are fun
-backup plane
-close formation flying plane

In fact I was racing this plane, I know, I know, I shouldn't have been, and the fuse became a lawn dart when the rubber bands went. Since the wing survived, I bought another fuse on ebay. Also, I've done a lot of instruction, and must say that for the majority of people a good strong, relatively stable, and slow flying trainer, is the way to go.

One last thought, the trainer is so much simpler too. Engine exposed and easier to work on. Only 4 servos. Even still it can be a pain to find a suitable buddy box, this would become even more so with the dual aileron/elevator setups in some 3D machines (unless of course one happens to have a 9C).

-Dropping stuff. i.e. GI Joe with parachute, tiny slope glider, etc...

ORIENTATION

An oft neglected skill and seldom talked about is the relationship of the aircraft configuration and ease of orientation. Orientation is a vital skill that you will be learning from day one and from day one the easiest configuration for orientation is paramount. A high wing cabin or parasol type with visable dihedral is far easier to maintain orientation in the widest variety of lighting/cloud conditions as opposed to a flat low wing. Now if you really want a challenge try a flying wing, these are undeniably the most difficult to manintain orientation of all.

No, long ago if someone insists on an inappropriate airplane as a beginner I just refer them to someone else. Guess what I usually end up with them much later with the right kind of airplane when their instructor gave up or they destroyed to many ships.

All a fast learner is doing when he shirks the learning basics and proceeds to fast is shifting the 'crash cycle' to a later period. Those newbies who brag that trainers are 'bunk' are doing a grave disservice to the vast majority of people who really want to learn and do it right.

And of course most certainly just my oppinion

John

I've had a couple of students learn to fly on non-traditional trainers, with mixed results.

One guy was good enough to do quite well using a Top Flight Elder. (it's a "stick" type plane, really). Very non-trainer like in the air, but he did fine after an initial steep learning curve. However, he actually went and bought a trainer in the end, and "soloed" his trainer. He was able to land the trainer a lot better, and really practice landings with out fear. Take offs were easier too. He could have soloed on the Elder, but he realized it would just mean more time when he had to fly with an instructor, and the sooner he was checked out, the sooner he could fly on his own schedule rahter than the instructors'. After flying the Elder a bit, he soloed his trainer on the first day out with it. It was just that much easier to fly.

One the absolute biggest advantages to a trainer is that the landing speed is a lot slower, giving time to react. Plus most trainers are much more tolerant of dorked landings or captian kangaroo routines down the runway. Trainers also generally have a very soft stall, so getting too slow a few feet over the run way just results in a mild bounce rather than a cartwhee, or breaking the fuse in half, or removing the landing gear, as is typical with many sport-3d type planes. For most students, landings are the hardest things to get right, and trainers, with out question, are easier to land than a UCD or anything simular. Easier because they tolerate mistakes on landing approach.