Is is the weight? Control surface throw? Longer tail moments? I'd like to know. I'm re-entering the sport after being out of it for years and I've got lots of questions. I have an old Contender 40 which I guess back in it's day was known as a pattern/fun fly plane. What I want now is a solid pattern/3d plane. A plane I could easily fly aerobatics with that isn't going to crush if I flop it in on a bad landing. some of these 3D planes are built a little too light for me. What's a good all around capable pattern plane that may also do some 3D stuff?

Mike

Pattern planes are designed for smooth and accurate flying.

3D or "AA" planes have far larger surfaces and throws to allow for extream manouvers.

Mike - tell us what engine size you'd prefer, and that will help narrow down the suggestions. There are many designs out there that can be pretty good at both, but not really excellent at EITHER []

Mike, A good pattern airplane that is also capable of 3D stuff is the "Adrenaline" by YT International and its smaller sibling, the "Freestyle Rush". Both of these planes are available from Kondor Model Products. I have the Adrenaline and it is my favorite airplane...........RS

3D is becoming a bit vague in definition these days. There's no doubt as to what pattern is, it's what pattern guys fly at pattern meets. And that is definitely flying on the wing, smooth maneuvers at moderate speed but no stall on the wing unless it's a snap or a spin. 3D to me is flying mostly on the prop, lots of flipping and flopping, mostly with wing stalled or nearly stalled. That calls for big control surfaces, lots of throw--just the opposite of a pattern set-up. A long tailed pattern model will have more pitch stability, a short-tailed 3D model will whip its tail around like a dolphin.

All that theorizing aside, I find the Great Planes Venus to be very versatile in its capabilities, capable of very smooth & graceful maneuvers when flown on low rates, but very light and stall-worthy on high rates. Not as nimble as the U-Can-Do, but definitely versatile. I would say the Venus leans more toward pattern, but with 3D capabilities. For something on the other side of the middle, the Funtana 40 or 90 is definitely more of a 3D plane, but capable of decent pattern performance. My best advice is get a Venus and a Funtana and fly both.

There's no such thing, don't let anyone fool you into thinking otherwise. All aircraft design and set up is a compromise. If you set it up to 3D well, it won't fly pattern well. If you set it up to fly pattern well, it won't 3D well.

That is an over generalization, but many many planes are decent at both. But if they excel in one or the other, then the other suffers.

Any pattern plane that is set up well will do SOME 3d. No it won't do every 3D trick in the book, but you can get it to hover, do harriers, rolling circles and the like. If you're looking for a plane that will 3D like crazy, then I'd suggest 2 different planes. If you can't afford 2 different planes, then you simply have to make a decision on what is more important to you. Which side of the pendulum do you want it to be better on?

If this is your first venture into aerobatics, then I would STRONGLY suggest a pattern plane and learn the basics first. You can always play with the throws and teh balance (to some extent) and get it to do some 3D, but it will be more work. If you get a pure 3D plane it won't fly precision worth a crap. One gust of wind and it's all over.

If you're referring to AA planes, all they are is a pattern plane that has enlarged control surfaces and massive throws. You can tone these down and they will fly pattern well, but keep in mind they are much more of a pattern plane than a 3D plane. Once you learn the basics and have a firm grasp of pattern, 3D becomes much easier. A lot of purist 3Ders are beginning to finally face this fact. And this is a good thing, there's room for everybody.

So, make your choice, and then decide what size range you're looking for. Genrally speaking, teh bigger it is, teh better it flies (but the more expensive it gets).

One more thought...what is too light? Planes that are built to crash don't fly well. Planes that are built to fly don't crash well. Keep that thought in mind. I used to build all of my planes to withstand a nuclear blast, but soon realized that the lighter they are, the better up to an extent. There are 3 areas that need to be beefy: the wing attach and spar, the firewall, and the gear attach. Everything else can be lightened because the load isn't nearly as high as one might think.

-Mike

Geez. Why oh why can I not seem to type the word "THE"?

-Mike

I'm thinking something in the 1.00 - 1.20 4 stroke range as far as engines go. I really like the 3D flying but at my skill level don't think I'm ready for it just yet. I've flown for years but have only had two planes. I'm proficient ar basic aerobatics only at this point (rolls, loops, cuban 8's, snaps) and inverted flight. I'd like to do knife edge, but my plane doesn't have enough rudder, plus it's an old plane. Time for something new that flies well but won't limit my skill development in a month.

MIke

If I could only have one plane, I would choose 3d. I find it much easier to pattern fly a 3d plane than to 3d a pattern plane. it is challenging and not perfect but I will start with square loop with 1/2 rolls, figure m with 3/4 rolls - my favorite then when fuel is burned off will bring it down and touch tail in grass. the theory that heavy over built airplanes hold up better for damage is a misnomer. I drove my 4lb 3d plane into weeds at full throttle last year - as I walked over to crash site with plastic bag I feared the worst but discovered there was no damage, just prop, I squeezed the canopy it popped back in place, switched prop and flew it again right away. you can drop a potatoe chip from a tall building if it lands in weeds it probably wont break.