First plane for a newbie

Dear Sir,

I do not think I have flamed you at all in this thread, and if you feel I have then I am sorry.

I do appreciate your advice and will take it under very serious consideration. It is just that I can not build anything! When it comes to assembling something more completed than putting an electric toothbrush together I always mess it up and it doesn't work. I realize that I may miss out on a very important part of R/C modelling, but it this point I do not think it is something I have the talent to do.

As for the advise on the NexStar vs. Avistar, I do thank-you. I will seriously look at the avistar and possibly save some money in the process.

what are the groups opinions on buying used as opposed to new for a first time flyer?

It wasn't my first plane, but I loved the H-Ray. I think I built four of them when I was a teen, before my long departure from the hobby. Wish I could get hold of one now.....

PCPhill

I've owned two Avistars. It's a nice flying plane, however I don't think it makes a good first plane. Why not? Because it's too quick reacting for a complete newbie. I think first time pilots need a plane with more forgiving flight charateristics. Again, the Sig LT 40 ARF comes to mind. It really is a cut above the rest. When flying it you'll completely forget that it cost you a couple extra bucks.

Don't combo it with the LA 40 though. It's too low on power for a plane this size. A better bet would be the O.S. .46 AX, or my favorite engine in this catagory the Thunder Tiger .46 Pro. I've also used a GMS .47 with good results too. Still, I like the TT .46 best of all. And it's pretty cheap too.

When you're through with this trainer, get yourself a Goldberg Tiger II. It's one of the very best confidence building planes out there.... and all the stuff out of your trainer will bolt right in.

Wiz

Kerry Receveur wrote:

I've not flown every dang trainer but the LT40 is by far the best of the ones I've flown.

My kit-built version (as per the July '95 R/C Report review) has been flown very satisfactorily by a Fox .25 on a 10x5 APC.

I helped a guy with an overweight GP mid-size J3 cub, had an LA .40 on it, no problem.

People need to learn to fly on the wing, not the engine.

Texas Pete

Kerry:

I too suffer from "Fat Fingers, Broken Project" syndrome. ;-( I have a SIG LT40 with a OS MAX .46 engine. I absolutely love it. It's fairly simple to put together. I spent about 8 or 10 hours total during the entire construction phase with the assistance of my neighbor who's been flying RC planes for many years. He also lent me his computer simulator (Great Planes) software, which I've just recently went out and bought the latest version. I highly recommend that you buy, beg or borrow a flight simulator and practice, practice, practice. Simulated airplanes are much less expensive and not nearly as demoralizing when you "Auger one in". ;-)

That was approximately 9 months ago.

I soloed on my third or fourth trip to the airfield with the help of an absolutely fantastic instructor.

Since then I've had some rough landings. Rough on the airplane and also on my ego. Luckily the SIG LT40 is a tough airplane, a little super glue or epoxy, some packing tape to seal up rips in the mono coat, and back into the air we go. You will find (as I did) that take-off's and flying tend to be quite easy to learn how to do. You will spend the rest of your life mastering the technique of bringing the airplane back safely to the ground in one piece.

Someday fairly soon I plan to pick up an electric park flyer so that I can fly around in the parking lot of my laboratory at luchtime. I haven't decided on which one it will be just yet.

As far as buying used stuff, be very careful. I would not buy my first airplane from a stranger. Go to your local airfield, join up, and start asking around. I'll be willing to bet that more than a few of the guys there have "Experienced" trainers gathering dust, that they would happily part with to a fellow club member. I'll wager they will be happy to help you get things put together and also set you up with an instructor.

Happy flying!

TomC RC Lurker

Kerry Receveur wrote:

I originally flew my LT-40 with an FP 40, the LA 40's predecessor. Once airborne it was fine. My problem was taking off with it. I had to make very long takeoff runs. That isn't particularly easy for a beginner and can be a cause of added stress while learning. How well did you steer with your left hand when first learning? (I know, you're left handed, right? ;) ) After a couple of outings my instructor recommended I try a little bigger engine. I installed an ST G.51 and was much happier with the way it performed.

Personally, I think beginners should have a trainer with a little extra power. Not because the extra power gets them out of trouble like I hear a lot of parrots saying, but because it lets them get up and off the ground in fairly short order. Short successful takeoffs build confidence. Long zig zaggy ones are stressful.

Wiz

Pete wrote:

I was not a beginner when I tested the LT40, but with the two trainers it took for me to get the hang of it the secret was in the setup. I've helped newbies who had so much throw in the nose gear as to render their planes nearly uncontrollable on the ground.

Set the nosegear to very low travel (innermost servo arm hole, outermost tiller hole), adjust it to run the plane dead straight and be very gentle on the rudder stick or load in the exponential if possible. A 150' x 3500' paved runway helps too.

A neat little trick with the LT-40 is because it is so lightly loaded you can take it off when it's moving only at a fast walk. The overpower fans usually freak when I do that one, which BTW I don't recommend for beginners because unless there is some headwind the plane is pretty near a stall going that slow.

Texas Pete

Tex:

What an absolutely fantastic idea! I've had the occasion of nearly losing control when attempting take offs. Torque makes the airplane want to go left, and herding her back to a straight line has not always been as smooth as I would like. (I've made some rather *ugly* take off's). Luckily the .46 has enough power to pull it into the air fairly quickly, but there have been times when it was not going anywhere near straight down the runway when the wheels left the ground.

I will make the changes tonight!

Thanks!

TomC RC Lurker

Sometimes planes tend to wander on the takeoff run because the field is on the rough side. That was part of my problem way back when. Although at the time I might have benefited from your advice, no amount of taming down the nose wheel will correct for a rough field. I still stand by my opinion that for the somewhat large LT-40 a little more power than the FP .40 was a big improvement.

I don't want to make this thread into another discussion about "What's wrong with the O.S. LA series". Let me just say that in the .40 size range I think there are better alternatives for the money and leave it at that.

For what it's worth, here's an example of > >

I don't disagree, Mike.

My LT40 became the "club trainer" and, because it's so forgiving, a test bed for new and crashed radios, along with new and crashed engines. That's how I found out it flies fine on a Fox .25, which probably is *more* powerful than the .40 LA, but the original engine installed was a Fox plain-bearing .40 which is a lightweight powerhouse! It's a real shame that Fox went to an air bleed carb, which made it nearly impossible to tune, but with the original two-needle carb and an hour on the break-in stand... yee HAH!

I don't understand why plain-bearing engines don't get more respect; they're more than powerful enough for sport flying, inexpensive to purchase and very low maintenance. The Thunder Tiger GP series comes to mind.

At this point there's good lower-priced alternatives to many O.S. engines of any series.

Texas Pete

A GMS .47, heh. Got one, love it! That's probably more powerful than an LA .61! Takes my 5+ pound GP SuperSportster MkII straight up out of sight!

Texas Pete

I didn't buy the LT-40 ARF. I built mine, but I have the feeling that the ARF retains much of the same forgiving flight characteristics that the kit version has.

I think most people have decided they NEED ball bearing engines for better performance. IMHO, the big advantage to ball bearings is less oil mess. These days, I usually buy ball bearing engines because that's the way all 4-cycle engines come. I've gotten to the point that 4-cycle is about all I'll buy anymore.....It's a sound thing ;)

Well, I really think the O.S. Surpass series are just about as good as they get from a user friendliness standpoint. I've seen my share of Magnum 4-cycles that didn't measure up. Saitos are good as well as Y.S., but there is not cost savings to be had with those brands.

I've been toying with electric planes for several years now. I'm getting to a point where I may just sell off all the glow stuff. If Lipo batteries would get a little cheaper (say 40% less) I'd sell off all the glow stuff and never look back. I accidentally got exhaust residue all over my TX yesterday....yuck!!!

Wiz

Me too. Built it, flew it, wrote about it as per July '95 R/C Report, issue 108. A model building course in a box. I hope it still is. The young fella that helped me to build the review airplane has moved far beyond where I am, which is absolutely wonderful. That's really what any teacher really likes to see in a "student."

There's a few happy folks in our group with the Magnum four-strokers, no problems but all low-time.

My old reliable Saito .50 is a genuine treasure, however YS fliers seem to have problems... the kind that come along with any very high performance engine only they seem to be more "sophisticated" due to needless (IMO) complication.

Texas Pete

The nice thing about the YS engines is you get a much larger engine for the displacement. The .91AC will swing props that make many 1.20s breathe hard. And, I have not had any reliability problems with two of them in over 10 years of service. Also, they cost less than just about any 1.20 four stroke.

Agreed on the power for sure, GOBS of power, but our two YS guys ( a .91 and a 1.20 who've since left the area) started having problems after not very much air time. The problems seemed to be related to the pressurized fuel system. You're a real engine man, Paul, so maybe they were just lacking the experience and finesse it takes to run a thoroughbred.

Texas Pete

The problem is usually a gummed-up diaphram. If dirty fuel gets in there, or it's allowed to sit for several days between runs, you got problems. Dr.1 Driver "There's a Hun in the sun!"

We have a fella at our field running an out of production Y.S. .61 two cycle. It came with an old pattern plane he recently bought. It runs great! He said that other than changing the plug he's done nothing to it but fiddle a tiny bit with the needle.

With the rubber coated tuned pipe on it, it's pretty darn quiet too.

Too bad all engines don't run with such dependability..... Too bad Y.S. discontinued that engine. It seems like a real gem!

Wiz

Dr1Driver wrote:

It really doesn't take that much finesse. Once they are set up, you shouldn't be messing with them. Most of the problems I have seen with YS engines are from people that know better than YS as to how to set them up. They are similar to Fox engines in that if you follow the correct procedure, you will have very little problems.

I haven't seen that problem. But, maybe its because I use only YS blend fuels. If you use a fuel designed for the engine, you won't have the problems. Of course, some people "know" that their fuel is better.

Problems with the diaphragm come from not using a filter and using improper after run oils. Any after run oil with petroleum components will damage the diaphragm in short order if it gets in there. Under normal circumstances, after run oils are not needed with YS engines as there is virtually no blowby gasses present in the crankcase. The crankcase is purged with fresh fuel every other stroke so no gasses have any tiem to build up.

You should also consider the diaphragm as a maintenance item much as a glow plug. It has a definite lifespan and needs to be periodically replaced. Mine usually lasted well over a year but I replaced them every year as insurance. $4.00 a year on maintenance is a small price to pay for the performance.

I also own an old OS .91 Surpass that has nearly 15 years of hard running with all kinds of nitro. The glow plug hole finally stripped due to a burr on a plug. Probably the best engine I have ever owned.