first plane suggestions, gas, no RTF or ARF

I forgot to mention that I am currently leaning towards the Great Planes PT-40 MKII Trainer.

Thanks,

~S

The PT-40 is a fine airplane and I am sure you will enjoy it very much. Since you are looking at the PT-40 may I suggest the PT-60 instead ? The instructions have two settings for the dihedral, "normal" and "sport", build it with a little less dihedral than the "sport" setting. I am not sure if the PT-40 has this option in the instructions or not. If you can transport the larger plane I am sure you will be very pleased with it and I know from personal experience that the PT-60 is a great flying and extremely strong plane. The plane is very capable of carrying a camera. It is also easy to convert the plane to be a tail dragger. A ball bearing

60 2 stroke will give you plenty of power, a 91 4 stroke would suit this plane very well if you can stand the cost.

Charlie

I'm guessing by "gas" you mean glow fuel. There are gas engines but mostly they are for teh larger planes. As I type I'm thinking a very large trainer might be cool! I built a Carl Goldberg Falcon 56 and it taught me many things. I do not know which balsa trainer kits now days would give you all the beginner hints. What size do you think you might like? a 40 size usually takes a .35 to .46 size glow engine. There are smaller ones and larger ones. mk

My first plane was a Falcon 56 too! I learned a lot by building it, but only got a couple flights on it due to a really REALLY bad first radio in the 70's. (a Blue Max I think...)

Goldberg has released a modern version called the Falcon III.

PCPhill

Here's a very nice model to start with......

A larger version if you wish......

Won't get easier or more basic than that..if you must go for vibration, camera shake, oil on the lens etc etc.

There is a reason most good camera platforms are electric....

Gee, how to answer this question without sounding too negative....

I'd recommend buying your standard ARF trainer. They are relatively cheap and have no "emotional investment" when compared to building your own plane.

Given my observations, less than 50% of trainers last from first lesson through to solo rating. Some pilots will need half a dozen before they get the hang of flying. That's a lot of wasted effort and disappointment if you built them all yourself.

As for gas engines, do you mean a glow engine or a gasoline/petrol fueled engine? Go for glow engine to start with as you're unlikely to find a trainer friendly sized gasoline engine.

Camera and all that stuff is great fun but don't expect too much from your first plane by leaping into a larger, camera equipped, gasoline aircraft.

PS. Just saw your other post with the link. Although I'm not familar with that particular model it looks like an excellent trainer to begin with.

Hmmm... I never thought of that. I still want gas though, maybe my next one will be an electric with camera. Is a four stroke or gas any better than a 2-stroke glow, for vibration?

~S

That's right, I am a real newb.

I am not really an aviation buff, so I don't really need anything to scale, thus I was thinking more in absolute sizes, say 60"~70".

My guess is that a smaller plane may be trickier to fly?

~S

Thanks for the words of caution. I think the vibration factor of gas will likely eliminate my camera desires for now.

~S

BTW

info here. mk

I've helped a few folks with PT40's and PT60's and to put it mildly I'm not a big fan. They're doggie flyers with far too much dihedral, real pilot-fighters.

IMO absolutely the best flying, best instructions, most complete you-build-it kit for a fuel-powered trainer is the Sig Kadet LT-40. It's big, easy to see, and it flies slowly - very slowly if you like - which is the most important attribute of a trainer. A decent .40 is plenty of power, too, even though it's pretty big. I've helped lotta folks with a lotta different models and the LT-40 is my all-time favorite. I've literally forced spectators to fly mine and they've done so without mishap.

Texas Pete

Just for the sake of throwing out another good option for you, I'll go ahead and mention the Carl Goldberg Protege .60 Kit:

I will admit that the SIG Kadet LT-40 was the first kit to pop into my mind though, as well. Like Great Planes and SIG, the Goldberg kits are supposed to be easy to build and fun to fly.

My first radio was a Kraft 76 series. About $265. Do you know what that will buy now days? Much more! Good radio though. mk

Ted shuffled out of his cave and grunted these great (and sometimes not so great) words of knowledge:

Since no one has mentioned it, I will.

Telemaster.

The plane is a taildragger, however, the plane practically flies itself. In addition, it will carry a nice payload (the camera you mentioned )

Ed, I mentioned the Falcon 56 but I just bought a Protege kit on ebay. Haven't gotten aound to building it yet. mk

I eventually ended up with a Kraft and a Heathkit. Loved'em both. My stepfather had a Single stick ProLine. He's lucky he didn't turn his back on it...

PCPhill

I did! further up this thread :^). The Telemaster 40 and the Senior Telemaster

Scott

-- Preston S Justis Astrophotography home page:

Well said Pete,

I'll second the comments about the PT series being a PITA. I have yet to see one that flies really well.

The Midwest Aerostar is high on my list of good flying planes

The ONLY real problems with the Aerostar are that they actually fly TOO easily, and don't force you to learn the rudder like you should, and they need some tri-stock braces on the vertical and horizontal stabs to be "beginner tough"

the Sig LT-40 or even the LT-25 would be good.

The Telemasters are also good. I have a Senior Tele with a .91 four stroke on it, and the electric tele. they fly almost identically the same in spite of the huge difference in size.

YMMV bob