I have a question for everyone, with the new( good) r/c simulators such as Aerofly Pro, Aerofly Pro Deluxe, Reflex XTR and so on, do you think that trainer aircraft are needed for learning as much as they use to be?? One of the pilots in our club taught himself on a sim, and his first aircraft was a 3D plane wich he flew with great success for many many flights (no instructor, ever) and is now an awsome pilot. I did start with a trainer but for only about a half dozen flights (first 3 with an instructor) and I started to get a little bored with it. After that, I bought a Twist, took it out and found it quite easy to handle and alot more fun. I too have spent several hours on a sim, and if I knew then what I know now, I would have started with the Twist and would not have worried about a trainer plane, and just maybe might not have bothered using an instructor. I think that the new sims my replace the need for trainer aircraft, and someday, maybe instructors too

Let's here your opinions on the matter.................

The answer varies greatly depending on the student. Some folks have a lot of natural ability. Others, like me, will need a good sim, a fleet of durable trainers, and a platoon of patient instructors.[sm=bananahead.gif]

Eric

Hi Shawnlh,

There are many trainers who would argue strongly against people starting out with any plane other than a flat bottom wing trainer. I myself am not a trainer but I learned on a simi-semetrical wing plane and am glad I did.

When I learned I did not have the advantage of a Simulator.

I do believe it is necessary to make first flights with a trainer.

Though it is not often, there have been people who have lost their lives in this sport.

The planes are not a simulation, they cannot hurt you. A real plane can hurt you and can kill you under the right conditions!

A good simulator will put you ahead of the pack who have not had the benefit of one, but flying the actual plane is putting a missle in your hands which could cause property damage and loss of life if events go badly!!!

Yes, a more advanced plane may be tried but the risk of crashing and loss does increase.

Because of the risk some trainers may not be willing to start out a new person with a really advanced plane.

Hope this gives you a little history to consider in terms of what a person may reasonably begin flying when fresh on the field with a new plane and only simulator experience.

Correction to fifth sentence above;

The simulator planes are a simulation on screen, they cannot hurt you. A real plan can . . . kill you under the right conditions!

well I have to jump in with the Trainer crowd on this one

I learnd on a trainer and SIM (G2) with no instuctor (feild was empty when I got off work) so my father and I would head out and take a crack at it with the other person there for safty (not the best way to learn but training night was not posible for me to attend) and I geuss I would fall into the semi natural at it group (but dont like to say that sounds cocky) I have always been intrested in planes and understood what makes a plane fly and what control imputs will cause what to happen (+ as much sim time as I could get) and I got my wings in my fourth flight with my trainer

however that not being the norm form what I have seen in the last 2 years there is alot of ppl who dont pick it up as qwick and I think having them train on anything but would be dangerous for others at the feild I have one person in mind he has been training for 1 year and every time he flys most of us move our planes and head for the feild shelter to watch him fly because he is too dangerous only the instuctor is on the feild with him now he does not try to be dangerous but I dont think he can help it he does not have the skills or reaction time needed to fly now take a situation like this and give them what most new ppl in the hobby want right away (a gaint scale warbird) and this would be a accident waiting to happen


so to sum up I think it would be risky for other pilots at the feild if trainers were removed from the market a pilot in the pits who is aware of the sournding would be aware of a trainer in the hands of a novice and be watching it and because of there lack of speed in most case could move out of dangers way shoud there be a need too but give the same novice a plane moving 3x - 4x times faster and it becomes a real problem

The semi-symmetrical winged Avistar and others like it are an excellent trainer/basic aerobatics plane, with an instructor. Put an O.S. .46 ABC in it, and it will scream if need be. At least it will fly inverted a bit with the wing.

Flat-bottomed wing trainers usually get put aside quickly after solo and a few rounds of the circuit.

Trainers? Always!

Charles

Yes IMO a trainer is a must. No matter what anyone says while most modern sims are good they are not completly reasistic. A model in a sim is set up perfect, most real planes arn't. They also do not behave exactly like any model i've flown. One big problem with the sim is there is no fear. I am a MUCH better heli pilot on my sim than in real life. As a wise man once said. Doing it on the sim does not count.

I'd also say trainers are a must ... what else are you going to stick skis on to fly in the winter

Carl

Depends on the person....

But, if possible, no matter what kind of plane someone brings to the field for the first time after learning on a sim, an instructor/fellow flyer should inspect the plane on the ground and take them up the first time or two at least. I've seen some newbes "sneak" out on our field when they think it'll be empty (when I'm the only nut out there that's crazy enough to fly) and they'll have an ARF put together improperly (I dunno how that's possible, but it happens) and try and take it up with freightening results. Having an experienced hand take a look to point out anything obviously wrong and take it up the first time is a must. A simulator does not teach you how to get that engine running smothly, how to set up the control surfaces and throws properly, check for a propper CG or demonstrate the importance of a range test on a new plane, or even an old plane at a new field.

Todd

I think I understand your question, I would say that with enough time on a good simulator you could probably get away with going straight to a docile 2nd plane like a 4*40 or a U CAN DO on low low rates. Both are VERY docile flyers and are easy to fly if you have the basics of flight MASTERED on a good simulator. However there is no way, NO WAY I would go over to real planes without help if you have a person ANY experienced person to help you. There is no need to prove you can do it alone. Its a dumb and pointless financial and more important safety risk to try to fly a real plane without human invervention.

That is a very good question.

The FAA actually allows 50% of the students number training hours for instrument rating allowed to be done on a simulator. That's a huge percentage. Also there are actual lives at stake as well. So if the FAA will allow 50% of instrument training to be done on a sim for transporting humans, why not 100% for RC?

I think it's quite obvious that Tower thinks the simulator can replace the trainer. Why else would their ads for the simulator come before the trainers in every one of their ads or catalog.

If you train right on the sim and confident personality, there is no reason to use a buddy box now if you have a lot of good hours on the sim. I'll be the first to admit that I learned to fly on G2 and never used a buddy box. I spent 3 weeks on it. Bought a trainer, went flying with no probs at all.

well glad to see I am not the only one that did that LOL Iw as in the same boat I mastered the sim trainer before taking mine out I checked the CG and took a crack at it and have never looked back in the 2 years since I have moved onto a few sports planes and at the end of the saeson I took up my fisrt 60 size plane a STAUDACHER with a OS 91 and had no problems other then picking the wrong Prop for it (to big) I have yet to have a pilot error crash to date *knock on balsa*

I have seen ppl get trained at our feild and pass there Wings test but I really think they tend to take it a bit too slow for some students from time to time if you dont learn to correct you cant be a good pilot

The plane that taught me to fly was a Dave Patrick Ultimate Biplane w/OS 160. I bought that about 12-16 weeks after I flew for the first time. Now if there is any plane that is going to keep you on your toes for a new pilot that was the one. That DP Ultimate is what I owe my flying skills too as far as the field goes. It taught me all about precision and flying on the wire. You were forced to make perfect landings or else it was gone unlike a trainer which you can basically land with your eyes closed while throwing full deflection.

I actually tell my new students not to mess around with trainers at all. It's better to get something hotter like a low wing sport plane and a good computer radio. With a good computer radio you can make any low wing sport plane into a high wing trainer.

My opinion is that learning on a sim is fine... HOWEVER! I feel a person should still seek out an instructor BEFORE their first real flight... The buddy box is optional... Hell when I learned to fly we didn't have them anyway.. The fact is though there are two problems with learning on the sim... FIRST someone needs to evaluate the person and make sure they understand that they are no longer "on a sim"... Property and or people CAN be damaged... Life doesn't have a "spacebar"... SECOND I think it is VITAL that a person learns how to do a pre-flight inspection... Check their plane and their radio before hand to make sure it's functioning properly... Make sure they know the ins and outs of the motor, tuning, etc... These are all things that can't be learned on a sim... As for the actualy flying skills, flight time on a sim is gonna get you the same place flight time on a trainer will... Perhaps even further since you won't be as "afraid" of the sim (i.e. heart skipping beats, palm sweating, fingers twitching, etc...)

I learned on with a high wing trainer and a sim. I soled after about a dozen flights even though I probably could have after the 5th or 6th flight. Landing was tricky since we get a lot of cross winds and gust at our field. The biggest gain in skill came after I purchased Aero Fly Pro (I was using G2) during a month of not flying during my training. I came back to the field and soled that same day based on the landing drills I was doing with AFP. I immediately moved to a Four Star 40.

In the end, the trainer taught me how to maintain an r/c aircraft and adjust the more advanced features on my radio. I did get bored with the high wing trainer and if I continued with it I would probably have gotten bored with the hobby.

I was flying G2 2 months before ever purchasing my 1st R/C plane, an Avistar, and soloed in the first week. I flew the Avistar for about 3 months before tip-stalling while flying too low and inverted. I then proceeded to purchase an Ultra-Stick with a Saito .82 and after the first flight I knew that this was a much better plane then the Avistar. It is easier to fly, points where you want it, and lands alot easier then the Avistar. I wish I would have purchased this plane first. I purchased a Stryker F-27 before I finished building the Ultra-stick and it is a fun flying plane. Now I am getting into my 1st 3d plane with Chip Hyde's Raptor biplane. I own 3 sims, RF G2, Aerofly Pro, and Reflex XTR. All have their own uniqueness, but the biggest disapointment is with G3. How can they expect a full price upgrade... I will vote with my $$$ and upgrade the AFP to Deluxe and sell the G2 and all 5 add-ons.

Yes

I think Eric said it best... depends on the person. I did not need one, I could have easily gone from SIM to the field.

I flew a sim for a few months, mastered just about everything - including landing the jets, then I decided to buy a trainer because it seemed like the right thing to do... it never pays to be overconfident. I flew it perfecly from the start, and I was bored with it in 2 hours. I could do everything with the trainer and even some things it wasnt meant to do... My landings were a little hot, but nothing I was not able to "unlearn" quickly. I literally went down the the LHS the next day and bought a U Can Do 3D 90 size and a Saito 100.

Not once did I have an instructor, nor was I checked out as everyone around me just thought I had been flying for years...

Had I to do over, I would have bought a U Can Do 3D 90 size from the start and not wasted the cash on the trainer. The UCD flew far better and easier than the trainer, and landings were much easier.

My overall comment though is mixed. I think its a good idea, if not in practice, at least in principle, to go through the whole trainer thing and to at least have a flight instructor do a check flight with you. On the other hand, if you are VERY GOOD at flying a sim, you probably won't need it.

In my opinion, starting with a good second plane (like a UcanDo or Spacewalker, etc) and having an instructor for the first few flights off the sim is probably the best way to go. You get the best of both worlds.. no money spent on a trainer, and you have a competent pilot to back you up and test fly the plane.

I now only fly giant scale gas planes, its a real thrill to fire up the gas engine and get that monster in the air!!
DP

I started a similar post in another part of the forums a few months ago basically saying what you are saying Shawnlh and i still think trainers aren't as necessary as most think. http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_22..._1/key_/tm.htm

STLpilot, how can you possibly compare a multi-million dollar airline flight sim to a $ 250.00 computer R/C sim? Besides Airline pilots don't just say,"hey I want to fly 747's". Every one of them has logged hundreds, if not thousands of hours of real stick time flying single engine, then multi engine, followed by a commercial pilots rating. By the time these pilots are flying big airliners with a lot of passengers they have logged some serious time behind the stick of a numerous aircraft, but I guarantee you they all started out on a trainer. As far as R/C goes, if you or anyone else thinks that they can spend some time on there computer, jump right into a Funtana 90 with an O.S. 1.60, go right ahead. It's your money, just do me a favor and give me a heads up before you come to the field, Id rather not be there when you run into your first problem, and you don't know what to do because it wasn't on the sim. Don't get me wrong I think everybody has gotten bored with a trainer at one point or another, but I usually find that the guys that think a simulator is a replacement for good hands on instruction, are 3-D guys that think because they spent 10 hours learning to hover a simulated edge 540 that they can just go out to the field and fly one. It strikes me funny how many of these same people write in to complain how week the landing gear is on their funtana, maybe if they practiced landings, not just hovering, they wouldn't be busting up their gear. Any way we are all entitled to our opinion, and that is mine.

I think that the Sim would be enough, if they made one where you had to adjust the needle valve before takeoff. Then if you stuck your finger in the virtual prop, it would disable one of the sticks when you flew. Then shortly after takeoff, the engine leans out, and you have to land deadstick. Or how about when you line up on approach, and someone else yells "Deadstick" and you have to suddenly get out of his way. There are just to many variables when it come to flying the 'real thing'. Come to think of it, I never saw a Sim where the engine bogged down on takeoff, and you had to abort. Just my .02.

Nashcat