Have you flown full scale?

At least the Cherokee has a relatively high wing loading. Doing it in a C150/152 or other lightly loaded plane is harder, IMHO.

I never progressed beyond SEL, but flew several types (Piper, Cessna, Bellanca, Grumman/American, etc) before a head injury wiped out my medical certificate. So, when I prang an R/C plane, I can just use the "brain-damaged" excuse! ;-) I do find full scale a lot easier - or did, I should say.

Geoff Sanders

>
Reply to
Geoff Sanders
Loading thread data ...

I sort of did it the other way around. I built a quarter scale copy of a fellas' Cessna 140 in exchange for an ultralight (Weedhopper) that he wasn't using any more. I read a book on flying ultralights then, I flew it after two short hops on a grass runway. He told me that if I really can fly RC, I can fly an ultralight. This thing had two axis control (rudder and elevator), a throttle, and a Hall airspeed indicator. My first impresson was that it flew exactly like a three channel RC plane. The advantages for me were that I already had a knowledge of the effect of stall speeds, crosswinds, glide angle and had an instinctive feel for a landing flare. Although I would never consider myself as anything other than an ultralight flyer, I can understand how full scale flyers are surprised to find they lack the skills to fly an airplane with only visual feedback. I found that with the simplicity of the ultralight, just stick and throttle flying, undistracted by radio and instrumentation, and proceedures, the craft became part of you and made you autmatically very sensitive to your orientation. The one thing that shocked me at first was how different things looked from the air at 500-1000 feet, and how easily one could become lost as roads and landmarks can often become unrecognizable to a novice pilot (alone without an instructor). I got lost more than once within a few miles of my home base until I learned to depend on the compass and to pick landmarks that were readily visable from all sides.

Phil AMA609

Interious wrote in message news:...

Reply to
pcoopy

Learning to fly full-scale will make a smarter RCer of you. Even just the groundschool training would help any modeler understand the much-misunderstood stall and spin behavior and the illusions created by flying in wind (the dreaded "downwind turn"). A few flight lessons will make you an attitude flyer, being more sensitive to the airplane's pitch attitude and thereby avoiding both inadvertent stalls and high approach speeds that result in overshoots or a landing in the rhubarb. My son and I started RC a few years ago and he caught on quickly, partly because of youth, but also because he had absorbed much from flying with me in my Jodel and the airplanes I fly at work. I found RC easy enough when the airplane was a powered sailplane, but his later stuff I am clumsy with. Things happen too fast.

Dan

Reply to
Dan Thomas

the air at 500-1000 feet, and how easily one could become lost as roads and landmarks can often become unrecognizable to a novice pilot (alone without an instructor). I got lost more than

compass and to pick landmarks that were readily visable from all

LOL, I recall my buddy and I looking for our R/C field the first time at 1000` or so. Flew around for what seemed like forever and finally flew back to the local highway and found a Pizza Hut that we recognized. We had to follow the roads to get to the field. You feel like a fool but your right, your orientation and location is always in question at altitude. rick markel

Reply to
Aileron37

Currently building (actually, rebuilding) a Teenie 2, making one out of two projects someone else started. Leftovers from those, and an original Jeanie's Teenie, are being turned into parts for an Aerosport Quail. I've got a set of wings for a two-seater that'll be similar to a Tailwind.

Started flying in a Tri-Pacer back in the early '70s, then went to a 150 for solo--instructor didn't want to chance his PA-22 with a rookie pilot. ;-) I've flown everything Beech makes/made up thru the 200, Cessna's thru the 310, and most Pipers up thru the Navajo, except the ones that have come out in the last

20 years or so. Wood wing Mooneys, and metal ones up to the 231--I grew up 4 miles off the approach end of runway 12 in Kerrville, so Mooneys were a daily fact of life overhead. My mom would get even madder when she'd be chewing me out for something, and I'd suddenly bolt for the door to look up. I want a Mite/Mite project so bad I can taste it.

Got 35 minutes in a Lear 23 once; didn't realize it was illegal as hell 'til much later, when I became more familiar with the FARs. Never got to fly the Falcon 10, tho. Currently fly with a buddy of mine in his Tailwind, when I get the chance. Flown in quite a few homebuilts.

Still ain't got my ticket. Got the hours, just not all of 'em in all the right places. Plan is to start up again in the spring, in Debbie Rihn's Citabria.

RC was easier, to me, and just getting back into it after a 20 year hiatus is easier than it will be to get back into flying rider scale. Dunno if it'll be any cheaper, tho!

J.D. "Too damn many projects, too damn little time"

Reply to
J.D.

I got a ride in an Army chopper last year, the pilot offered to fly around my house, we had a hard time finding it! Eventually flew along the roads, left at the lights, up the hill, just like a car but at about 200 feet. The Army can fly where they like and as low as they like, otherwise I'd never have found it!

Reply to
David Smith

Think you're right about the C-150/152. Harder to fly overall, though I only had a few hours in them. Underpowered. Dave

Reply to
Interious

Cessna installs the engine with no right or down thrust, and rudder input on takeoff and in climb is significant. Piper installed the engines in many of their low-wing airplanes with right thrust, and they were better behaved in the takeoff roll. Airplanes for sissies :-)

Dan

Reply to
Dan Thomas

After we landed, the instructor went around the back and bent the trim tab on the rudder over a little more. My next flight the effort was much less. IIRC, the 172 has something like 1/2 degree difference in the AOA of the left and right wing to help with the torque/counter the slipstream.

Reply to
John Alt

I transitioned into full scale pretty easily based on my R/C experience. All pilots in order to be successful have to know HOW planes fly. R/C provides a wonderful background.

BTW, I just love my ultralight.:

formatting link

Reply to
Joe D.

Underpowered compared to what? It's a trainer designed for 2 people. I would venture you have never flown a tri-pacer or maybe an old champ. After flying an old 60 horse, you gotta prop it champ... I thought the 150 was a Porsche in the air, and it even had a narco superhomer!

Reply to
w4jle

"Ed Forsythe" wrote in message news:...

Nah, Ed, you don't take things too seriously. You just BT DT in a number of ways that a light plane private pilot has little understanding of.

You mentioned a few and I like to think about how easy it was to get yourself in a tight when making a "Teardrop Penetration and Approach" while twisting the LF *Coffee Grinder* knob and trying to stay on the 'aural-null' course. Doing that around a bunch of T-Storms made my bottom tighten up. (;-)) Never had to do the dit-da and da-dit range thing in the real world, for which I remain very grateful. I did the all-by-myself thing for RC because after all, I had been supersonic straight up and straight down, so what's an RC model gonna' do? After I got some big repairs made, I got some help (NO buddy cords then) and soloed on 3rd flight. I do relate that to full scale knowledge. It took a lot of flying to get final approaches left-to-right all straightened up, but right-to-left were never a problem. Personally, I think that very little relationship of Flying 1/1 versus RC can be any form of definite as per the physical and mental requirements. Full scale flying, in the heavy metal, jet fighters/bombers, jet commercial, is so far beyond anything in RC that I cannot compare the two. While the simple mechanics of steering the machine around the sky don't require much attention, when things get tough, and they do, then the RC can simply be bagged up and thrown away. In 1/1 you just might well be in that bag. In a jet, in severe emergencies, the division-of-attention requires a very disciplined mind to cope. As you said in military a lot of those that started never finished, but that was because of the designated time restraints. Many washouts went on to commercial flying careers. Anyone can fly after enough training. I've been RCing for 30+ years, but I don't do 3d and probably never will. Too many other more interesting things to spend the time at 3D. Could I? Probably, but definitely not in 1/1.

41 years military and civil. T-37, T-33, T-38, T-29, B-47, C-123, F-89, B-737, B-727, DC-10, DC-8 and ONLY ONE TIN-BENDER -- A DA_N Cherokee 140. To _ell with light airplanes!!!!
Reply to
Horrace Cain

Hi Horrace, Nice talking to you again . You flew a trainer (T-38) that could outperform my F-100 and when I flew it, the F-100 was the fastest fighter in the world!

The problem with us and light planes is that we look on them as mickey mouse birds. We are inclined to forget that a C-150 can kill you just as dead as a F-16. although it wouldn't strain you through the instrument panel as thoroughly .

However, I'd like to see a very expert RC pilot who can take a scale P-51 through the hoops, put on a real '51 and do the same thing. To anyone foolish enough to try death would not be an option it would be a certainty.-

Here's to pilots. I love 'em all, Tally Ho!

Reply to
Ed Forsythe

No difference is specified in the maintenace manuals. There are eccentric cams in the rear spar attachment point that can be turned to move the trailing edge up or down a tiny bit, perhaps a max of 1/2 a degree, maybe less. Most 172s (we have three) have the left and right eccentrics adjusted so that the wings are at the same incidence. If it wants to roll left or right a bit, we will adjust the eccentrics to neutralize the rolling tendency; it's usually caused by small differences in the way the wings were built. If a higher incidence was put into the left wing, the airplane would roll right when power is reduced, and ours don't. There isn't enough power in a 172 to make much difference. Some high-powered airplanes had a bit of wing incidence built into them, but power-to weight ratios were awesome. I can get a little roll just by leaning across from one side of the airplane to the other. Dan

Reply to
Dan Thomas

Right--I have much less experience than most in this thread.

Underpowered compared to a 172 or Cherokee 140.

No--never a tri-pacer, though there is one at our field. I do see your point, of course.

Reply to
Interious

embarrassed they don't come back for the second lesson. One thing you have to remember about ARFs: you don't have to buy one (although it's mighty tempting). John

Reply to
John R. Agnew

The 150/152 IS underpowered. We operate out of an airport at 2975' msl and performance is (was) weak with our two 150s. We've since sold them and gone to other airplanes. Their useful load was too small, too, so a couple of us big guys and an hour's fuel would bring the weight to max gross. The 150's 100 horses are wasted somewhere, possibly in the rear window area where there is a sharp profile reduction that causes some extra drag. The older straight-backed 150s were faster. I flew a few hours in a 90 horse Ercoupe, and it outperformed the 150 in every way except comfort. Took off shorter, climbed and cruised faster. My

65 horse Jodel will keep up to a 150, and carry almost as much.

Dan

Reply to
Dan Thomas

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.